Authoritarianism

Post Reply New Topic

You're kinda missing the point because quite often the violence that emerges isn't planned with the intention causing massive change, quite often it's little more than self-defence or retaliation.

I'm not approaching from the angle of whether or not the resulting violence is good or bad, just from the angle of how much choice is involved. When things are bad enough violence is inevitable.

Don’t use that “off-topic” fallacy on me just because you don’t agree with me. I’ve stuck firmly to the topic.

We’re talking about authoritarianism. Not all violence is the result of “oppression” is what I’m trying to say.

We have peaceful protests which seek to address, say, the actions of the police. Then you have the idiots who set fire to cars and loot stores. “Oppression” is not the cause of this, usually. The desire for thrills and the acquisition of property for free tends, rather, to be the cause.

Are you sure oppression plays no role whatsoever, or is that just what you'd like to believe so you don't have to consider what actually motivates people to become that pissed off?

Of course it plays a role….obviously, it does. If you don’t know that, you haven’t read history.

Where do you see that I’ve said otherwise?

However, very often, it’s mixed with more nefarious motivations.

Martin Luther King acknowledged both oppression’s role, and the role of nefarious influences, as he preached his gospel of non-violence.

MLK's effectiveness was multiplied by the knowledge that if he appeared to fail there were far more violent men willing to take his place.

True….but his success was also enabled by those who believed in rational, non-revolutionary solutions to an obvious problem.

I just don’t believe a “massive overhaul” will solve our problems. Rather, it will exacerbate them.

To paraphrase JFK those who make peaceful change impossible ensure violent revolution.

If peaceful attempts at addressing issues are ignored at some point that triggers a more forceful response. The key to avoiding that outcome is for an establishment to be responsive to the society it operates in. Failure to do so invites the inevitable.

Liberal democracy and everything it's gained exists because people were willing to get violent.

Thurgood Marshall certainly successfully made use of peaceful means to effect massive change.

Your democracy was gained through violence, abolition of slavery occurred thanks to violence, the labor movement's gains were largely secured though a mix of violence, non-violent direct action and threat of violence and the civil rights movement always had the threat of violence lurking in the background.

Even when people were able to actually achieve a change institutionally they were allowed to because the threat of violence existed if they had of failed.

Yep. That was the case. Alas!

A combination, in tandem, probably works best…..but it doesn’t benefit me, personally. I’ve never gotten anything through violence.

I just don’t believe, this time, that resurrection will have the desired effect. Maybe the THREAT of it could prove useful. But a massive overhaul will inevitably exacerbate things. It would cause Social Darwinism on steroids.

One of the problems with liberalism is that most of the gains achieved involved going outside the rules of the system but yet the ideology insists that change must be achieved within the existing institutions.

Considering that's not even how things were achieved under liberalism it seems misguided to take the people framing things that way at their word, some of them are just wrong and the rest are liars.

Yep….that is a conundrum.

Do as I say, not as I do.

Alas, though, pragmatism often gets in the way of idealism.

I’m sure King had to do things which went against his principles.

I think its important to take a step back and recognise that authoritarianism can arise without politics where a leader is a populist dictator and/or a authoritarian leader (sometimes called a strong man). In non-western countries this is invariably somebody from the military.

It's been said, a dictatorship will come to America with the flag and the cross.

I agree that violence isn't the solution, and I would not take part in a riot but I can see why they happen. Also, a protest intended as peaceful can be made into a riot if police start brutalizing the protestors, and throwing tear gas into the crowd since that creates chaos and probably sets off peoples fight or flight response.

Um, I must have been tripping balls (not literally but figuratively speaking) - when I read that last time as I have responded with something that doesn't even address what you said? I cannot see that you have edited your comment? So I must have read it incompletely.

I think I only responded to part of your comment before.

Yes, I agree that anyone who commits murder should be convicted. Having a badge should not be a free pass to take lives. In fact, if someone is in a position of authority & abuses that authority, then personally I feel that they should receive greater punishment for failing to live up to their duties.