Speaking of Revolution

[kcbrown]

Solidarity was a peaceful revolution. Martial law was imposed because of it, but the movement remained peaceful, Martial Law was lifted, and eventually Poland became a democracy.

One wonders whether martial law was lifted due to outside influence more than the movement itself...

The Islamic revolution was a result of peaceful strikes and demonstrations, which resulted in the exile of the Shah. It was not until after the collapse of the Monarchy, and the Ayatollah was excepted by the Iranian people as their leader that violence began as the people attacked and executed those still loyal to the Shah. But the fall of the monarchy, and exile of the Shah was the result of the strikes and demonstrations.

The lesson that could be learned from the above is actually a disturbing one: if you're in support of the sitting government and there's a peaceful attempt to displace it, you're better off resisting that attempt through violence rather than allowing the government to be displaced peacefully, since as a prior supporter of the former sitting government, you will just become a big target of the new sitting government.

That suggests that a smart government will smack down peaceful demonstrations with force if those demonstrations show that the populace is against the government. Alternatively, it suggests that a smart government will simply ignore those demonstrations and force the people to take up arms. Either way, the result is the same: escalation to violence.

 

[BigToe]

One wonders whether martial law was lifted due to outside influence more than the movement itself...

Perhaps without the revolution, it would have not have been brought to the attention of outside influences.

The lesson that could be learned from the above is actually a disturbing one: if you're in support of the sitting government and there's a peaceful attempt to displace it, you're better off resisting that attempt through violence rather than allowing the government to be displaced peacefully, since as a prior supporter of the former sitting government, you will just become a big target of the new sitting government.

That suggests that a smart government will smack down peaceful demonstrations with force if those demonstrations show that the populace is against the government. Alternatively, it suggests that a smart government will simply ignore those demonstrations and force the people to take up arms. Either way, the result is the same: escalation to violence.

Yes, I guess the point is that revolution itself does not require bloodshed, but often the result of revolution does result in bloodshed.

 

[Scott7891]

eljefefx has it right. These peaceful revolutions were only because of outside forces unwilling and unable to intervene who would have no problem making it violent so and yet there was plenty of violence to go around.

The Salt Satyagraha (Eventually ended British rule in India)

The British were broke from WWII. It was costing them more money to hold on to India. Economic restraints are what led the British to truly leave India. Also don't forget the Massacre at Amritsar.

Polish Solidarity movement (Ended Martial Law in Poland)

The Soviet Union was in shambles. Their economy with "perestroika" being the policy of Gorbachev was tearing them apart. Had it not been for those two features the Soviets would have done exactly what they did in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The Polish communist government was only powerful as the supporting Soviet Army was. Plus the Polish commies did not go down without a fight. There was still violence.

Peaceful Revolution (Resulted in the fall of the Berlin Wall)

Velvet Revolution (ended Communism in Czechoslovakia)

Bulgarian Revolution (ended Communism)

See above same as the Polish example except Germans were reuniting with fellow Germans.

Islamic Revolution (ended Iranian Monarchy)

Hardly peaceful.

Yellow Revolution (Brought Democracy to Philippines)

Don't know about it so can't comment on it.

One wonders whether martial law was lifted due to outside influence more than the movement itself...

Ding, ding, ding we have a winner.

The Soviets were not going to come and save their fellow commies in Poland. Those in power in Poland tested the revolution to see how fickle it was. Seeing how it wasn't and many wanting to keep their jobs than be killed they ended communism and shifted themselves under the new government like all elites in all of history have done unless they are killed outright.

The lesson that could be learned from the above is actually a disturbing one: if you're in support of the sitting government and there's a peaceful attempt to displace it, you're better off resisting that attempt through violence rather than allowing the government to be displaced peacefully, since as a prior supporter of the former sitting government, you will just become a big target of the new sitting government.

That suggests that a smart government will smack down peaceful demonstrations with force if those demonstrations show that the populace is against the government. Alternatively, it suggests that a smart government will simply ignore those demonstrations and force the people to take up arms. Either way, the result is the same: escalation to violence.

It is happening right now as we speak with the Occupy Movement, Tea Party, anyone who really speaks out against the government, etc. Look at the IRS harassment and other entities doing it under the radar.

 

[Scott7891]

Good point. Revolution often has unintended consequences and the people often end up worse off.

The French Revolution gave them Napoleon.

The Russian Revolution gave them Lenin / Stalin.

The Cuban "Revolution" gave them Castro.

The Iranian Revolution gave them the Ayatollah.

So how do you do this without falling into the same pattern.

IMO the Constitution IS the best form of government created by man yet. The problem is it is not being followed.

I am going to disagree. We have had over 200 years living under a relatively free society. The majority of people who want revolution today in this country want to restore us to a free, liberty-minded society envisioned by our Founders.

The examples mentioned were people who never lived in a free society so had no idea what the concept was and thus wanted anything other than the ruling order that made them revolt to begin with. They were more concerned with economic matters (bread) than with freedom being more of an afterthought.

 

[rico903]

Your skin in the game theory is flawed, if not outright stupid---I believe both. When I originally enlisted in the USAF, I owned no property and by the time I purchased property, I had served well over 5 years. As for as not having skin in the game before I purchased property, I find your theory not only flawed and stupid, I also find it insulting to myself and to all those who have served that did not own property. IMO we most certainly had/have skin in the game. To all those who believe the way you do, it is your right, but as far as I'm concerned, anyone should know the drill....
Fred

A stupid idea if I ever heard one. As for taxes, renters subsidize their landlords taxes so they do have some skin in the game. I've owned for 30 years BTW.

 

[rico903]

So I guess a lot of people here are saying that a disabled vet or LEO living on disability or SSA should not be allowed to vote? What a F'd up concept. And an apartment building owner collecting Section 8 subsidies should get as many votes as units they own?

 

[BigToe]

eljefefx has it right. These peaceful revolutions were only because of outside forces unwilling and unable to intervene who would have no problem making it violent so and yet there was plenty of violence to go around.

The revolutions I listed are considered by historians as "bloodless revolutions". They are considered so because the uprising of the citizenry was conducted peacefully through strikes and demonstrations.

Obviously any revolution has a root cause, often economic climate, and sometimes outside influences move things along, but there is no arguing, from a historical standpoint, that the citizen uprisings of the revolutions I listed were non-violent. Whether they were met with violence from the government, or helped by outside influences does not negate that fact.

Even our own revolution involved other factors...the debt incurred by the British due to the French and Indian war, which caused them to press the colonies for more revenue, as well as France's support. You could argue that the revolution was facilitated by these factors; but as with any revolution, without a revolt by the people, violent or not, the status quo will remain.

 

[rascal]

I think the trends in the US put the people with faith in the constitution in the distinct minority.

In other words, the bad news is that if there were a revolution chances are the result would be worse than what we have today. We would have more government, more rules, more intrusion and less liberties

 

[JMangle]

I don't want a new boss (Obama II), I want the old boss (Jefferson).

 

[Sthomas229]

Kind of like the Soviets said...You don't work, you don't eat, right?

Not at all. "eating" and "voting" for the hand that feeds you are 2 different things.

 

[Les Gawlik]

The Islamic revolution was a result of peaceful strikes and demonstrations, which resulted in the exile of the Shah. It was not until after the collapse of the Monarchy, and the Ayatollah was excepted by the Iranian people as their leader that violence began as the people attacked and executed those still loyal to the Shah. But the fall of the monarchy, and exile of the Shah was the result of the strikes and demonstrations.

I have it on good authority that there were people runnin' and gunnin' and throwing Molotov cocktails at the time. Don't know if I would call that peaceful. Lots of people went to Evin and simply disappeared.

 

[BigToe]

One other thing to consider is that we are witnessing a revolution right now. There is an infiltration in the Executive Office that is imposing a new form of rule...one that does not follow the constitution, nor heed to the checks and balances of the legislative and judicial branch. There is an infiltration in our education system which conditions our children to accept this new paradigm. There is an infiltration in our media which refuses to acknowledge the situation.

The revolution has begun, but unfortunately, those with the most to loose are too ignorant, or lazy to resist.

 

[jpk1md]

Personally I can't see how anyone can justify allowing anyone on the dole to be allowed to vote

But over all, those of you that entertain thoughts of "revolution" should ponder this.

If you can't win the battle of the "Ballot Box" what makes you think upping the anti to the "Ammo Box" would be any more successful?