Rebellion in Dreamland.

[Jin]

Revolutions. Do they help or hinder society? Do the ends always justify the means? If not, then where do you draw the line and under what circumstances would you cross it? Will the world really be a better place if the [insert societal cancer here] are done away with?

I've been thinking about this lately, mainly due to some of the answers given in the latest religion thread (but please don't bring religion into this unless it's relevant, such as in the case of an anti-religion revolution). What are your thoughts on using violence or coercion to "throw off your shackles"? I'm not talking about the Scientific Revolution of the Sexual Revolution here, I'm talking about violent political or social revolutions with the supposed intent to create a better world.

What are your thoughts?

[Joe]

Well, IMO, when revolutions did escalate to violent social and political revolts, the people as a whole felt they were justified in their actions. Take the American Revolution for instance. The people yearned to be free, but the British continued to levy heavier and heavier taxes on the people to subdue them. The people were immensely angered by this, and so they took uip arms to defend themselves against what they saw as a threat to their survival and way of life.
As a result of this revolution, though, the British lost a huge source of raw resources and money.

So I suppose to answer your question as to wheter revolutions are good, that would depend on whether you were the revolter, or the one being revolted against. For the revolters, if they are successful, it results in a better life for them, while those who were revolted against, tend to suffer at least economically.

[loner-kid]

Ahh but that is dependent on them winning if a rebellion loses things tend to get worse and the oppressor feels justified in their actions because of the violence of the failed rebellion.

Violence can show people how devoted you are to your cause, but also gives your opposition an excuse for their actions. Violence, in a way, is like a double edged sword it cuts both parties. Take for example terrorists, their actions have made many people in the west feel justified to invade other countries, this only magnifies the problem. If you're going to use violence it should only be used to topple a government and it should be done in a way that gives the least collateral damage.

[Walter Sobchak]

Three of the most brilliant minds of their generations (Martin Luther, Benito Mussolini, Dwight Schrute), have issued a common phrase, "Blood alone moves the wheel of history."

Unfortunately, I have to agree with them. In the last 100 years, Russia has gone through a revolution to overthrow a czar, a revolution to put the Bolsheviks in power, and a revolution to overthrow communism.

While I adhere to the idea of elected leaders and the power of the vote, sometimes, that is not enough. The ruling class can be corrupted over time, and when they infringe on our universal rights, we need to revolt.

Unfortunately, in revolution, you have to deal with the side effects. Look no further than the French Revolution. However, I am of the opinion that this loss is a catalyst to a greater good.

[Jin]

if they are successful, it results in a better life for them

Does it? The American Revolution had a rare outcome. Based on the French and Russian Revolutions, and nearly every anti-imperialistic revolution to this date, I would disagree. You can't just force a new style of government that the state and the people aren't ready for. That's basically what a revolution is, a violent method of speeding up political evolution. Forcing these things, in my opinion, leads to more harm than help.

France is a great example. They overthrow their monarchy for a republic in which the Terror is present, revert to a dictatorship, are thrown back into a monarchy after foreign powers intervene, have another revolution to form a second republic, have that overthrown for yet another dictatorship until finally the third republic is declard in 1870, 80 years after the initial revolution. And even then, a large chunk of the population hated the third republic. 9 times out of 10, I'd be willing to wager, you can't force government.

[Momo Mastermind]

History really isn't my specialty, so I'm going to attempt my best at this, and at least offer my insight into the matter.

In my opinion, regardless of the outcome, regardless of the reason, revolution is always good. This is comming from a philisophical viewpoint of course.

Think of it in terms of logic, not really on an individual case. A revolution is the overthrow and replacement of an established government system by the people governed. The masses. Regardless of what the government had done, the masses want change and they demand it immediately. Change is always good because change is needed to correct the wrongs, even if during the changing period more wrongs come about.

A revolution is not always good because it brings about what the masses want, but just the basic concept of it being realized. The mass group of people changing that which they do not agree with, the power of thos being controlled. We need more things like this in our world today when control is the main priority. If only for the idea of a revolution, win or lose, it is always good to have it materialized.

[Jin]

Think of it in terms of logic, not really on an individual case. A revolution is the overthrow and replacement of an established government system by the people governed. The masses. Regardless of what the government had done, the masses want change and they demand it immediately. Change is always good because change is needed to correct the wrongs, even if during the changing period more wrongs come about.

Your wording is a bit confusing. Are you saying that change is good because it corrects wrongs while creating only temporary problems or are you saying that change is good because it corrects wrongs and creates new ones at the same time? The former is wrong. Change doesn't have to correct anything and it can create far worse situations that last much longer than the changing process. The latter doesn't make sense to be called good considering it does as much harm as good. Or is it something completely different?

[Joe]

"A revolution is the overthrow and replacement of an established government system by the people governed. The masses. Regardless of what the government had done, the masses want change and they demand it immediately. Change is always good because change is needed to correct the wrongs, even if during the changing period more wrongs come about."

I think he might mean it as a principle similar to the Mandate of Heaven. with the Mandate of Heaven, as long as the Gods support the powers that be they must be doing things right. However, revolution, and the overthrowing of the mandate of heaven, shows that the old government was doing things wrong. Something along the lines of the people know what's better for them, than the few in power.

[Anthiena]

Tacitus and Loner Kid, I love you. Seriously. This is the most intelligent stuff I've heard on ID in quite a while.

Rebellion was failed in many places and times, and you are right-the US is a very rare instance indeed where it created needed change and was able to produce stable government. However, there were many Geopolitical things to remember.

-The people in general felt that this change was needed. The theory sort of holds, if you count Austrians throwing flowers on Hitler when he came through as a sort of rebellion/revolution.

-The people who believe in the changes matter as well-Common Sense, Ben Franklin's almanac and cartoons as well as The Federalist spoke to the common people in language they could understand and have empathy for. Many of these people were noted and admired in their society. They were also mostly stable, even if Ben Franklin would run electricity through his fence to scare gawkers.

-The people fighting succeeded in a war of attrition-their labor was cheapest, the land cheap and mostly fertile, while the British Isle is more dense in population, even then. There wasn't much more farmland that they could squeeze out of their own country. The fact that there was such a long distance that could only be covered over sea also didn't help matters with the British either.

-Support from foreign sovern nations is a great, great help. France helped the US, we didn't help France-much. Ammunition, soldiers that believed what they were fighting for and would fight for it again is a great morale booster for both foreign and domestic soldiers.

More later....