These days, why is political violence frowned upon as a means to an end?
But if someone won’t die for an idea, then why does this idea have worth?The whole idea of democracy is that questions on who should be in power and what they should do while in power would be settled with words rather than with weapons. If somebody has to resort to using violence to intimidate opponents into keeping silent, that's a big clue that they know full well that the ideas they're pushing would not have a chance at becoming the consensus if it had to participate in a democracy that was free and fair.
Yeah....let's cool down on killing and dying for political beliefs, shall we?But if someone won’t die for an idea, then why does this idea have worth?
Besides 2016 proves that democracy is dead. No one wants to vote on anything but rather they want a strongman to dictate for them! Why do you think people are flocking to Trump, Bernie, Corbyn, or Johnson?
Truth is that people are tired of stagnate democracy and want a Caesar or Bonaparte to lead to a new age!
This is the age of the Superman as predicted by Nietzsche.
Well, except the French one. Russian one wasn’t too fond of the rich either.Because people are idiots and will willingly allow themselves to be oppressed so long as there are not large waves.
In the past most revolutions only occurred because someone rich got pissy at the government and backed a change of regime. In most parts of the world right now the rich people are the government (or dictate how it operates), so they like to play down any problems and try to sedate the population that they profit from.
Yeah....let's cool down on killing and dying for political beliefs, shall we?
@Lerticus, my country have been fighting communists from 1948 - 1989 and one race riots where people straight up went killing each other in the streets. There's a reason our klepto ex-Prime Minister handed power when he lost the election despite doing every dirty trick he can.
Sorry, but this world is so fucked up that people think that exporting "freedom", or whatever bullshit, is sexy, but when it comes to holding their own government to account it is fine to have no changes ever happen so long as you put a slip of paper in a ballot box.
At some point those with strength of conviction will attempt to make changes when words are proven to be not enough. If that means that some people like terrorists are viewed as better than the bleating sheep, so be it. That is what happens when the sheep stop caring about whether or not they are ruthlessly butchered, so long as it is by the elected ruthless butcher.
See? You should have joined the Communists. That way you could export freedom like all the cool countries do.@Lerticus, my country have been fighting communists from 1948 - 1989 and one race riots where people straight up went killing each other in the streets. There's a reason our klepto ex-Prime Minister handed power when he lost the election despite doing every dirty trick he can.
We remember political violence quite well, thanks. Why do you think Malaysia stayed out of the business of 'exporting freedom' as you call it?
Here a few main reasons:These days, why is political violence frowned upon as a means to an end?
My intent is not a civil war but a seizure of power.Here a few main reasons:
- Civil wars are bad. Like really bad. And allowing the use political violence outside a legitimate system is an invitation to either civil war or government collapse. A large amount political theory is bad around avoiding this failed state. Because this leads to a race to the bottom where brutality and ruthlessness are selected for, and leads outcomes that are bad for society at large.
- And supporting political violence is either going to lead to escalation and conflict, or lead to a government that now celebrates violence itself rather than simply using it as violence.
- When you support political violence, what your also doing is supporting a civil war/revolution. Now, civil wars and revolutions can be necessary and threats of force can be useful. But history is rife with examples of them going wrong, so one needs to be very aware of the potential risks of their actions.
- And as Scotty implied, people and systems in power are incentivised to preserve the status quo rather than start a war to the knife over disputes whose outcomes they can live with.
This is like saying “My intent isn’t to burn down my neighbors house, but his backyard and garage.”My intent is not a civil war but a seizure of power.
Also much worse acts of violence will happen under climate change and my intent is to stop it.
Gaining power via political violence will also make it more likely that the people who seize power will the most radical and violent ones and the things that worked for them in gaining power (like violence, ideological purity perhaps) will be their preferred methods once in power.My intent is not a civil war but a seizure of power.