NationStates Jolt Archive

As each new story of political corruption and incompetance in the news piles up, I've taken to thinking about some of the past instances were people rose up, prefferably through non-violent means, and over through a corrupt government, and the circumstances that motivated them to do so. Examples range from Ghandi in India, to the American Revolution, to the Russian Revolution. So my question is, when does it become justified to use extra-legal means to remove a government?(note that I am not talking about violent revolution speciffically, see Ghandi as an example. I personally opose violent revolution for just about anything less than genocide.)

revolution is justified when it succeeds.

We had this topic 6 or so weeks back, and I will restate that my opinion is that when there is unnecessary bloodshed from the top down, there should be revolution from the bottom up.

As each new story of political corruption and incompetance in the news piles up, I've taken to thinking about some of the past instances were people rose up, prefferably through non-violent means, and over through a corrupt government, and the circumstances that motivated them to do so. Examples range from Ghandi in India, to the American Revolution, to the Russian Revolution. So my question is, when does it become justified to use extra-legal means to remove a government?(note that I am not talking about violent revolution speciffically, see Ghandi as an example. I personally opose violent revolution for just about anything less than genocide.)
If you ask Thomas Jefferson, he'd say (since he was influenced by John Locke) that "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it."

revolution is justified when it succeeds.
Or more cynically, this is true also.

I think revolution is justified right now, but I can't get enough people to agree with me, so I'm stuck. (Even my crazy commie friends won't do it.)

I'd say that it's definitely a question worth asking, and when I have a thoughtful response, I will weigh in.

When is Revolution justified.

When it succeeds, usually.

History is written by the winners, after all.

We had this topic 6 or so weeks back, and I will restate that my opinion is that when there is unnecessary bloodshed from the top down, there should be revolution from the bottom up.
:fluffle:

Sounds like something Bakunin would have said. I like it. :cool:

You want to be careful about what you say on line. Governments monitor online comunications, you know. I don't think you'd enjoy being detained as an enemy combatant.;)

Revolution is justified when the people under a government no longer wish to follow said government. When said government has commited an act of aggression toward its own people, violent or non-violent when oppression is made upon the people to restrict their rights then revolution by violent means should be had.

More or less I like to follow what the US declaration of independence says, that when it becomes nessisary for a people to abandone the shackles of an oppression government they have the duty and right to do so. Something along those lines...

You want to be careful about what you say on line. Governments monitor online comunications, you know. I don't think you'd enjoy being detained as an enemy combatant.;)
You're right. I should be careful. But as they probably know, I'm not a credible threat, since I'm a privileged, bourgeois teenager. ;)

But still: I not only believe revolution is justified, I advocate it. I just hope that when the workers all go on strike the tanks don't roll in. :(

Revolution is justified when the people under a government no longer wish to follow said government.
That's pretty ridiculous. Communists in the US would never want to follow the standard, pretty right wing mainstream, but that doesn't make them right to start a revolution.

There has to be a genuinely good reason to start a revolution, because if you're essentially revolting for the sake of it then the utter chaos in the administration of the country in the first few months, maybe even years, will all have been for nothing.

When the government is causing much suffering and is unable to be changed democratically.

That's pretty ridiculous. Communists in the US would never want to follow the standard, pretty right wing mainstream, but that doesn't make them right to start a revolution.

There has to be a genuinely good reason to start a revolution, because if you're essentially revolting for the sake of it then the utter chaos in the administration of the country in the first few months, maybe even years, will all have been for nothing.

well...there was more to that sentence then just that...but I see your point

We at the NSA watch this page very closely.
Now, we aren't saying that you can't post on this page freely.
We're just saying that what happens at Guantanamo stays at Guantanamo. :D

Whenever a government comes into your house. Oh, or the first four poll options!

When the government is causing much suffering and is unable to be changed democratically.
What about when the government is causing much suffering and the people refuse to change it democratically?

I personally chose "when legal recourse no longer exists." Just because the government breaks the law is no excuse to reduce ourselves to our adversary's level. And if we overthrew every incompetant government, there would be constant anarchy. Only when legal means of improving the situation no longer exist does an extra-legal course of action become morally justified in order to remove those in power. Smaller crimes may be justified as civil disobidiance against an unjust law.

I would have voted "human rights abuses" as well, but I forgot that I made it a multiple choice poll.:(

What about when the government is causing much suffering and the people refuse to change it democratically?

Not sure if much can be done, you can't fight the majority.

a revolution justifies itself by proving that the current authority can't keep the population in line usually through the fault of its own incompetence

also when we need to steal ideas off the Dutch!

Examples range from Ghandi in India

Ghandi didn't have a revolution...unless he's risen from the grave and killed my precious monarchy installing his own violent tyranny!

History is written by the winners, after all.

actually you will find its written by dusty old men hundreds of years after the event took place

I think revolution is justified right now

overthrowing a democratically elected government? is that like legal?

Only when legal means of improving the situation no longer exist does an extra-legal course of action become morally justified in order to remove those in power.

What if legal means exist, but their use would be too slow to stop intolerable evil?


Smaller crimes may be justified as civil disobidiance against an unjust law.

Civil disobedience is the ultimate form of fidelity to the law. Revolution and militant nonviolent action fall outside of fidelity to the law.


overthrowing a democratically elected government? is that like legal?

This was probably unintentional, but please be careful. It was not the OP who posted that comment. It was me. And I don't care what is legal, I only care what's ethical.

Before you jump too much on my case and report me to the authorities, I don't advocate armed overthrow except as a last resort. (We are nowhere near last resort territory.)

What about when the government is causing much suffering and the people refuse to change it democratically?

thats where the military come in! (HRH only job these days I guess)

if we overthrew every incompetant government, there would be constant anarchy.(

a bigger question would be if you would actually want a super good government

Just to clarify again: when I say "revolution". I am defining that as any illegal activity undertaken to remove the government from power or change the nature of said government. That definition does include acts of civil disobediance which are often illegal, if not so by definition.

a bigger question would be if you would actually want a super good government
You would never actually get a stable, super good government. The changes in who was at the top and how they worked would continually be such that people would spend months just sorting out administration, during which time little of Real Benefit To People actually happens. Which would lead to a revolution, and another, and another, ad infinitum.

thats where the military come in! (HRH only job these days I guess)

ROFL. The military for justice??? Good one.


Just to clarify again: when I say "revolution". I am defining that as any illegal activity undertaken to remove the government from power or change the nature of said government. That definition does include acts of civil disobediance which are often illegal, if not so by definition.

Oh, I guess I don't advocate "revolution" then, because I was thinking about general labor strikes and other forms of noncooperation.

And though civil disobedience is "illegal," it is not unlawful. One who is civilly disobedient shows fidelity to the law by disobeying the law (not necessarily the one protested) publicly and sincerely, agreeing not to resist arrest.

revolution is justified when it succeeds.

No better answer could be possible.

I don't care what is legal, I only care what's ethical.

but ethics are not something that can be easily defined from person to person and even scenario to scenario.

for instance numerous dictators have overthrown democracy's with popular support (which I presume would also include ethical support of banning the right to vote)

You would never actually get a stable, super good government. The changes in who was at the top and how they worked would continually be such that people would spend months just sorting out administration, during which time little of Real Benefit To People actually happens. Which would lead to a revolution, and another, and another, ad infinitum.

I was thinking more of the government actually enforcing it laws hampering the population and business with strict legal definitions (and could you imagine how the democratic mob would function on overtime:eek:)

ROFL. The military for justice??? Good one.

what about Thailand? Fiji? Brazil (1889)? Turkey?

revolution is justified when it succeeds.

Truth.

/thread

I think revolution is justified right now, but I can't get enough people to agree with me, so I'm stuck. (Even my crazy commie friends won't do it.)
.

If there was an organized revolution now, or about to occur i would join, but at the moment all we have are political parties.

If necessary i would become a guerrilla, although i would need a hell of a lot of training.

Truth.

pfft what about a South American anti-communist government? they don't seem to be all that justified these days:p

If necessary i would become a guerrilla, although i would need a hell of a lot of training.

you would give up T.V and the internet so you can sit in some muddy swamp all day being shot at by the CIA/cowboy alligators?

I think I will stay at home for that one (http://youtube.com/watch?v=T7CStvwUOAg)

If there was an organized revolution now, or about to occur i would join, but at the moment all we have are political parties.

If necessary i would become a guerrilla, although i would need a hell of a lot of training.
Why bother? Your revolution will only be depressing anyway.

"WOO FREEDOM AND WEALTH FOR ALL!"
"We can't afford that, sorry"
"THEN LET'S TAX THE RICH REALLY HEAVILY!"
"and now they're laying off staff, creating more poverty"
"THEN LET'S MAKE JOBS!"
"And now inflation is so bad a loaf of bread costs twenty thousand dollars, and will probably be fifty thousand by the end of the day".

pfft what about a South American anti-communist government? they don't seem to be all that justified these days:p

Or, indeed, ever.

pfft what about a South American anti-communist government? they don't seem to be all that justified these days:p

They were when they were in power (at least for the military leaders), until they got overthrowned by pro-democracy revolutions themselves :)

revolution is justified when it succeeds.

agreed.

Or, indeed, ever.

I'm sure back in the days of an imminent global conflict against an Authoritarian superpower/s they where

They were when they were in power (at least for the military leaders), until they got overthrowned by pro-democracy revolutions themselves :)

and now they are not looked on in a good light hence the idea that revolution being justified by success is folly

zeitgeist and all those fancy words the Cambridge folk use

The first four options. Look at Belarus -- my heart bleeds.

I think revolution is justified right now, but I can't get enough people to agree with me, so I'm stuck. (Even my crazy commie friends won't do it.)

I'd say that it's definitely a question worth asking, and when I have a thoughtful response, I will weigh in.

If there was an organized revolution now, or about to occur i would join, but at the moment all we have are political parties.

If necessary i would become a guerrilla, although i would need a hell of a lot of training.

you probably didnt think i was serious when i said that a revolution is only justified if it succeeds.

it doesnt matter what grounds there might be now, no revolution is justified in the US or any other country you might be living in because it would not have the support necessary to succeed. to fight without hope of success is to kill thousands for nothing.

that is never justified.

you probably didnt think i was serious when i said that a revolution is only justified if it succeeds.

it doesnt matter what grounds there might be now, no revolution is justified in the US or any other country you might be living in because it would not have the support necessary to succeed. to fight without hope of success is to kill thousands for nothing.

that is never justified.
What about the slave rebellions that failed? Were they unjustified?

I'm sure back in the days of an imminent global conflict against an Authoritarian superpower/s they where

So like, Pinochet's regime in Chile was justified?

What about the slave rebellions that failed? Were they unjustified?

yes.

depending on the specific circumstances, of course.

but if all they did was end up getting themselves and others killed, it was unjustified to try to rebel if they had no chance of freedom.

now, of course, it is a justifiable moral choice to decide to die fighting rather than to submit to further servitude but its not moral to take others (other slaves) with you when you do.

When legal means are impossible, and when Human Rights abuses are being perpetrated...

but, people should be careful with Revolutions, it generally doesnt turn out so hot, you just replace one Tyrant with a worse one...

You should consider the British and American examples, do it gradually...

When it succeeds, usually.

History is written by the winners, after all.

If they know how to write.

As each new story of political corruption and incompetance in the news piles up, I've taken to thinking about some of the past instances were people rose up, prefferably through non-violent means, and over through a corrupt government, and the circumstances that motivated them to do so. Examples range from Ghandi in India, to the American Revolution, to the Russian Revolution. So my question is, when does it become justified to use extra-legal means to remove a government?(note that I am not talking about violent revolution speciffically, see Ghandi as an example. I personally opose violent revolution for just about anything less than genocide.)

http://e.deviantart.com/emoticons/p/paranoid.gif

*grabs Skyland and puts him/her in a sack*
*Throws into an unmarked black van*

Nothing to see here. Move Along.

*gets into black car and drives off*

My view is, succeeding is always the goal, but what really counts is making your message known, and there is no better way to do that than to die for your cause.

Che Guevara died in Bolivia fighting the Bolivian army, trained by the CIA, that vastly outnumbered his own, but he is still remembered and loved to this day, and his message lives on, and that is what counts.

My view is, succeeding is always the goal, but what really counts is making your message known, and there is no better way to do that than to die for your cause.

Che Guevara died in Bolivia fighting the Bolivian army, trained by the CIA, that vastly outnumbered his own, but he is still remembered and loved to this day, and his message lives on, and that is what counts.

Yeah, theres just the whole, you have to die to do that...

And, im not expecting many virgins in this part of the world, lol...

when the government no longer represents the interests of the people.

We had this topic 6 or so weeks back, and I will restate that my opinion is that when there is unnecessary bloodshed from the top down, there should be revolution from the bottom up.

Perhaps. The strict definition of "unnecessary" might take a little effort however.

Incidentally, have you seen that "Taking Liberties" documentary on 4OD? A bit tendentious, but all the same, highyl enlightening.

Perhaps. The strict definition of "unnecessary" might take a little effort however.
"That I personally care about". There we go.

Easy: when the people of that country is completly fed up with the way there country is run, and the government does not care about what they think.

Revolutions are Justified, when Revolutionaries Justify it...

History is Written at Gunpoint...

When people get tired of the government taking or controlling their property.

So like, Pinochet's regime in Chile was justified?

take a wild guess, in hindsight it was stupid but the US at the time had a few thousand Soviet missiles aimed at it which makes the best of us rather jittery

he is still remembered and loved to this day, and his message lives on, and that is what counts.

no it doesn't, I can buy his face on a shirt for $23.99 (http://www.thechestore.com/proddetail.php?prod=T09) freshly made by Southern slave labour (who BTW have never heard of the man even though they happened to be the target and not middle class white teens)

when the government no longer represents the interests of the people.

what if the revolution happens to be rather unsavory in its ideas?

Incidentally, have you seen that "Taking Liberties" documentary on 4OD? A bit tendentious, but all the same, highyl enlightening.

hmm is thats the one about Blair's police state?

When people get tired of the government taking or controlling their property.

considering people hate things like choice and responsibility I guess you assume never :)

considering people hate things like choice and responsibility I guess you assume never :)

Unfortunately so.

take a wild guess, in hindsight it was stupid but the US at the time had a few thousand Soviet missiles aimed at it which makes the best of us rather jittery

Am I strawmanning you if I say your argument is "OMG missles wer AIMED AT US!!!" so it's okay that we supported a dictator who killed and tortured something over 10,000 people?

Either way, it still doesn't justify the Pinochet regime: the Allende government was not a credible threat to the US. It's just that he was going to do things we didn't like, for example, socializing stuff.

Whether it's "stupid" in hindsight means nothing about its original justification.

How about overthrowing the Guatemalan government in 1954? Or how about supporting the Indonesian invasion of East Timor? Were these justified?