Thursday, February 03, 2011

Savant's Words

That is a question with which Dr. King struggled during his entire life as a Movement leader.
But is REVOLUTION possible withut spilling rivers of blood? Or are revolutions ALWAYS bloody, as Malcolm X seesm to imply in his famous "Message to the Grassroots" speech?

First, what is a revolution? A revolution--unlike rebellion or Reformisn--is a FUNDAMENTAL transformation of any entire social order, an entire poliical and economic order. It also entails a radical CULTURAL transformation, and a transformation even in day-to-day interhumean relations.
And there must be, as Dr. King argued, a "revolution of values" as well as insttutions.

But can that be achieved peacefully? In particular, King came to see racism as inseprably tied to ECONOMIC EXPLOITATON. But to overcome that implies the transcendence of capitalism itself---a "radical redistribution of economic power" were the words I recall from one of King's speeches.

But can it be accomplished by NONVIOLENT means?

But you probably realize that folk like King or Gandhi believe that in the long run it is VIOLENT revolutions that don't work.
Or at least they hold that violence creates as many problems as it solves.
But perhaps we have too dim a picture of humankind. Humankind gives us both Hitler and Francis of Assisi. It gives us idi Amin and Bishop Tutu, Bull Connor and Viola Liuzzo. The slaveholders,but also the Abolitionists. Gestapo, but also Sophie Scholl. Perhaps it is a mistake to believe that we have a fixed and given human nature. Perhaps we are as capable of compassion as cruelty, and fraternity as well as strife. Perhaps we can opt for community over chaos.



__________________________________

POLITICAL CONDITIONS & NONVIOLENCE

Some say that nonviolence has a chance if the ruling power is not a police state. Or if the despotic regime being opposed is a weak one, or one that has lost the will to preserve itself.

In short, it is held to be possible a relatively "liberal" regime.

In a "liberal democracy" like England or America, even Karl Marx thought that revolutionary change is possible without bloodshed.

But is a FUNDAMENTAL social transformation possible without bloodshed even in America or other similar republics?

The structure of power and wealth was not significantly affected by civil rights laws in the 1960s. Nore even by new labor reforms or laws of the 1930w under FDR.
Indeed, the nearest thing to radical social transformation in America was the Abolition of slavery and beginning of Reconstruction.
For this involved the destruction of an entire social system of bondage and its replacement with "free" labor.
But that was accomplished by means of VIOLENCE, by a CIVIL WAR.

Can new Reconstruction--multiracial--b e accomplished in America without drowning our land in blood?


_________________

Yes it is. Gandhi and King both won their battles, though they sacrificed their lives to do it.

The alternative is just not ethically viable.

I believe in self-defense. If someone comes after you to kill you, the time for turning the other cheek is over.

But otherwise, PEACE is preferable.

______________

Cocheese wrote:
There is no such thing as a non violent revolution.
Revolutions are fueled by blood.
That has beeen the case with revolutions, as Malcolm X noted (even though he also considered political empowerment as a posssible alternative. Ballot or Bullet).
But must it ALWAYS be the case? A Greco-American fellow philosopher and friend once suggested that AT LEAST IN OUR TIME nonviolent revolution is possible.
In reply to the claim that it cannot work in police states, he points out that the Filipino dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos was toppled by revolutionary but nonviolenct PEOPLE POWER.

He also notes that the entire Stalinist empire in eastern Europe (excepting Rumania) was overthrown by popular, nonviolent insurgency.
In countries like America, where there's more elbow room (at least for now) for people to move, there ought to be greater chances of nonviolent change.

Of course, some peopple say that nonviolent REFORM (e.g. Civil Rights Actu, 1964) is possible, but not NONVIOLENT REVOLUTION.
it's the possibility of the latter that I am pondering.
No just for the sheer joy of intellectual speculation.
I feel that we NEED a REVOLUTION in America, and the world.

And while I'm not King or Gahdhi, I would like to be able to achieve this without drowning the land in rivers of blood.
Is it POSSIBLE?

_____________________


A New Society?

In short, can we create a radically different, more humane,all around BETTER society without carnage?

I'm not sure, but I hope so.

Yes, your racial and class ideas seem as fantastic to me as my radical egalitarian ideas seem to you. Yes, I think a cooperative society is possible--maybe even necessary for the survival of civilization itself. In part, I favor the idea of King that we must move from being a "thing-oriented" culture to become a "person-oriented" culture. I think that cooperative is the principles of civllization, and competition the principle of barbarism. To be sure, every society has both principles in operation. But the FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE ought to be cooperation, and democratic community. And yes, a democratic cooperative community and society does require the transcendence of capitalism and its intrinsic alienations.


______________


http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/T007AI7IFB3PC2B8P

____________________________



Savant wrote:

It certainly is not, but then I didn't ADVOCATE bombing police stations; but simply suggested given the atrocious behavior of police in AA communities, people should be grateful that such measures have not been resortec to.
In some countries, oppressed people have resorted to guerilla warfare--and even terrorism.
Thera are some AA people who even now think that it must come to this eventually.
I ponder whether a fundamental transformation can be achieved without spilling an ocean of blood.
And keep in mind, Savant is NOT Gandhi or King. I am quite aware of my capacity for anger and indignation, even violence--which, nonetheless, I seek to keep under the restraint and governance of reason.
But I want to consider if there's a peaceful path before taking arms against others.
A brilliant tactic was that of the Black Panther Party. In opposition to outrageous police violence against the black community, they went about ARMED, but also with a cameraman and a lawyer!

Another of their famous tactics was to have breakfast programs for the poor kids, during which they were educated about what was happening... all of this too much for the system, which brutally eliminated the Panthers.

I only wish we were seeing such enlightened action today.

Whence the next wave of inspired revolutionary and NON-violent action? I eagerly await it.

-Barros Serrano
_________________________________

A non-violent revolution is the ULTIMATE IDEAL that we all should aim for. But how ACHIEVABLE it is in REALITY? I'm not so sure.

Call me cynical but time and time again, history as shown that the major revolutions have all happened with bloodshed and violence. I think partly because the people that want a revolution and change are TIRED and FRUSTRATED and that inevitably leads to anger, hate and violence against their oppressors. Or you have the oppressors feeling threatened and they use violence as a means of subjugating those that want change to put them in their place.

However, I still believe that it CAN be done. People need to have a common goal, and a worthy enough cause to fight for. History looks back on those that have fought their battles without using violence in a heroic light- people like MLK, Gandhi, etc

It can be done, we just need to strive for it.

-kemi8

No comments: