Home› Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

a quick thought

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
in Politics & Debate
when the ability to make peaceful change is denied, violent revolution is inevitable...

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sometimes. But think about the african slaves, they didn't have the opportunity to peacefully win their freedom but there were actually very few rebellions - since there were so many anyone who kicked up a fuss was simply killed, and then the traders claimed it off the insurance.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    wheresmyplacebo wrote:
    when the ability to make peaceful change is denied, violent revolution is inevitable...

    It depends what you mean by the "ability to make peaceful change"

    If you mean the "right to protest", there are some causes where you might protest eternally without creating change.

    But perhaps the "right to protest" is mostly intended to stop the biolent revolution :)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    speak softly and carry one mutha of a big stick
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    if you think in terms of marxism:

    the only way in which the prolateriat can bring about change for themselves is to seize control of the means of production. Marx predicted that this would happen and that it was inevitable. however - despite the fact that there is no peaceful means by which the proletariat can achieve this, they have not formed a rebellion. so what is going on?

    perhaps i am confusing the issue by adding a new concept entirely..

    :S
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    xmizzcattyx wrote:
    if you think in terms of marxism:

    the only way in which the prolateriat can bring about change for themselves is to seize control of the means of production. Marx predicted that this would happen and that it was inevitable. however - despite the fact that there is no peaceful means by which the proletariat can achieve this, they have not formed a rebellion. so what is going on?

    perhaps i am confusing the issue by adding a new concept entirely..

    :S

    a little bit, and besides Chile already proved that one wrong when they voted in a socialist leader.

    I think the question is that if change through peaceful means is impossible is it moral to use violence. i would say yes but sometimes unwise.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    freethepeeps wrote:
    It depends what you mean by the "ability to make peaceful change"

    If you mean the "right to protest", there are some causes where you might protest eternally without creating change.

    But perhaps the "right to protest" is mostly intended to stop the biolent revolution :)

    :thumb: :yes: I learnt this as a member of the NUS in the 80s when the Labour led executive led the membership gently by the noses down the sensible protest route.

    Funny enough one of the main leaders became one of Blair's Babes in the 97.
Sign In or Register to comment.