Can there ever be real political change without bloodshed?
Revolution vs Reform
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
BlueVeins · 22-25
originnone · 61-69, M
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
There can be but the most dramatic ones have involved a fair share.
Those with wealth and power will often (well always) resist violently when other mechanisms of social control break down.
Those times of major political change without violence have involved non-violent direct action and/or powerful union movements achieving evolutionary change. I'm thinking of FDR, the suffragettes and the Attlee Labour government. Even then, it can only go so far: achieve a class compromise, and concessions, not an overhaul. Voting matters but that alone can't ever achieve significant progressive change without other social forces. Also, those gains can (and largely have been) rolled back.
For those anti-leftists ready to pile on me, please understand that it needed a series of revolts to end feudalism. Look at the impact of the English Civil War (a partial revolution), the American War of Independence and especially the French Revolution. You wouldn't be able to vote or have significant rights without these events.
It's still worth campaigning for social democratic reforms and maybe that is the other thing possible. However, I've come to the conclusion that actual socialism could never be achieved by a pacifistic strategy. It just can't.
Ralph Miliband's essay on the 1973 Chile coup is worthwhile if harrowing, reading.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/miliband/1973/10/chile.htm
Those with wealth and power will often (well always) resist violently when other mechanisms of social control break down.
Those times of major political change without violence have involved non-violent direct action and/or powerful union movements achieving evolutionary change. I'm thinking of FDR, the suffragettes and the Attlee Labour government. Even then, it can only go so far: achieve a class compromise, and concessions, not an overhaul. Voting matters but that alone can't ever achieve significant progressive change without other social forces. Also, those gains can (and largely have been) rolled back.
For those anti-leftists ready to pile on me, please understand that it needed a series of revolts to end feudalism. Look at the impact of the English Civil War (a partial revolution), the American War of Independence and especially the French Revolution. You wouldn't be able to vote or have significant rights without these events.
It's still worth campaigning for social democratic reforms and maybe that is the other thing possible. However, I've come to the conclusion that actual socialism could never be achieved by a pacifistic strategy. It just can't.
Ralph Miliband's essay on the 1973 Chile coup is worthwhile if harrowing, reading.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/miliband/1973/10/chile.htm
Entwistle · 56-60, M
I think if enough people got together,bought a few islands and started a new society that would be great.
Whether the establishment in the already organized society would allow it is another thing altogether.
The powers that be wouldn't want the wider population seeing that there's is a better,fairer way.
Whether the establishment in the already organized society would allow it is another thing altogether.
The powers that be wouldn't want the wider population seeing that there's is a better,fairer way.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@Entwistle That idea goes back to Jules Verne. If you prefer, the pirate islands of Bermuda. And before that, the Mayfair run to America.. It always ends the same way. And into time I am sure the Martian Federation will have the same ideas...😷
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@Entwistle I accept that the motives of the original settlers may be pure. Its the next wave or second generation who just have to "make a few improvements."😷
View 2 more replies »
deadgerbil · 26-30
@helenS where do you draw the line? 500 killed? 1000?
ViciDraco · 36-40, M
@deadgerbil i think if the deaths in your revolution can blend in with annual murder statistics, it is largely bloodless.
deadgerbil · 26-30
JSul3 · 70-79
@SW-User I still have faith in the youth of America. Today's youth are more diverse, more caring and understanding. They have lived through war, school shootings and gun violence, a pandemic, and an attack in the foundation of democracy.
As each day passes, more of them become eligible to vote.
I likely will not live to see it, but even should those radical extremists succeed in burning our nation to the ground, these young people will help to raise this country from the ashes, and finally make America the land of liberty, freedom, justice, equality for all, a reality, and not simply words on parchment or a dream.
As each day passes, more of them become eligible to vote.
I likely will not live to see it, but even should those radical extremists succeed in burning our nation to the ground, these young people will help to raise this country from the ashes, and finally make America the land of liberty, freedom, justice, equality for all, a reality, and not simply words on parchment or a dream.
SW-User
@JSul3 Yes, I look to the young. Sometimes things can look darkest just before the dawn.
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
@SW-User NATO uber alles. The Final Solution.
Iwantyourhotwife · 22-25
Philth · 46-50, M
I see people in my own country, metaphorically on board a lifeboat because they've been scuppered by our ruling elite. But the direction of that lifeboat is established by democratic vote, and those are onboard are convinced that the beam of light from the lighthouse represents safety, rather than danger. We democratically vote to head in it's direction. Only when rocks penetrate the hull will they realise their error.
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
Yes. We could vote in a revolution. Americans certainly are in a position to prevent that! And let's all admit that alternatives to war and murder aren't going to seem possible to the Murkan "people". Killing good. Living is communist.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
There can... But its not likely.. So often the people with the power, the money and the guns dont want to give it up..😷
DunningKruger · 61-69, M
Yes, of course. It's hard either way, though.
Probably not
Cierzo · M
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
ViciDraco · 36-40, M
Yes. Though the speed of change happens on very different scales. It's important to note that neither way is a reliable method to get the results you may want though. We can look at FDR's new program and how it saved and rebuilt a middle class in the US, but was then gradually reformed away by the wealthy to once again favor the rich. Most revolutions have ended up fairly unsuccessful. Trading one set of problems for another, and often times one set of rich people for another.
SW-User
Tricky one
iamonfire696 · 41-45, F