Hacker News Reader

Comment by csomar | Hacker News Reader

If you want results, riot in the streets. Civil disobeience. Historical actions and movements that achieve some measure of peace.

Do you have any backups for that? I mean, any historical proof that rioting will make change?

You know, Tunisia went on a relatively peaceful revolution and now we have less freedom and more problems/unemployment. It's even worse for countries where the revolution is violent.

Having lived that experience, I'll be against rioting/civil disobedience any time and for any cause.

Want to make change? Educate people. nothing else.

View on HN

As another example, the U.S. is actually on its second government, not its first.

After the American Revolution we setup a government under the "Articles of Confederation". To put it bluntly, this new government sucked and was useless.

A convention was held to suggest improvements for the Articles; they decided instead to do it over again and propose a government that could actually stand the test of time.

The framers of this new Constitution then had to convince the rest of the country to adopt this different form of government. In the process of this debate and feedback it was decided to further specify Amendments that became known as the Bill of Rights to satisfy some reluctant states.

All of this happened peacefully.

The United States of America peacefully transitioned to its second form of government on March 4, 1789.

It hasn't been all peaceful, all the time, after ratification, but it should be in my opinion. We've managed to achieve so much as a nation with non-violent resistance and protest, there's no reason not to do that here to push for transparency.

Some political scientists would say we're actually on our third or fourth.

The third U.S. republic was created after the Civil War, with the passage of Constitutional amendments that made the Federal government unambiguously superior in power to the governments of the states.

The fourth U.S. republic was created during the Progressive Era, with the creation of the "regulatory state" in which significant authority over economic matters was delegated from Congress and the courts to regulatory agencies in the Executive Branch. This system evolved gradually over the years (with the biggest changes coming through Roosevelt's New Deal and Johnson's Great Society) into the system we live in today.

The changes wrought by the Civil War were unfortunately quite violent, but all the other changes have been peaceful, as you note. Our ability to reinvent our democracy in this fashion is a big part of why the Constitution has survived so long -- we can change how we govern ourselves in big ways without having to tear it up and start anew.

Ain't going to happen, because PRISM simply doesn't make the lives of 99+% people significantly worse. People riot when there's high unemployment, because that has a big impact on their daily lives. We don't have enough info about PRISM to correctly evaluate what impact does it have on our lives.

First you say this:

Do you have any backups for that? I mean, any historical proof that rioting will make change?

Then you say this:

Want to make change? Educate people. nothing else.

Your teachers must have omitted teaching you about the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War protests. And those are only two examples where protesting and rioting actually made a huge difference.

The Civil Rights movement used peace tactics, non-violence and Ghandian ethics. The Vietnam war protests were largely peaceful, except when e.g. government soldiers attacked college students at Kent State. @csomar is correct that changing peoples minds and following nonviolent tactics can effect change-- although not always matching everyone's expectations

The Vietnam war protests were largely peaceful, except when e.g. government soldiers attacked college students at Kent State.

With some significant exceptions, like the Weather Underground (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground).

Indeed much of the violence in Vietnam war protests turns out to have been instigated by FBI agent provocateurs. Most of the violence of the era was perpetrated by the forces against change.

much of the violence in Vietnam war protests turns out to have been instigated by FBI agent provocateurs.

Oddly like many — if not most — of the "terror plots" that have been "stopped" over the past however many years, that...

Revolution in France in 1789. We don't learn history in school for nothing I hope.

That made change.

Not necessarily the DESIRED change, but it certainly changed things!

That brought Democracy. Which is closer to what people wanted at that time : A country ruled by the people.

Let's not forget that it brought us something even more beautiful : The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Ma...

It also brought us Napoleon. And dictatorship. The guillotine. Many wars. More executions. The identification of the political right vs the political left. And on, and on, and on.

The world was certainly changed. Not always for the better.

I'm sure there are some exceptions -- but most advances in the world can often be advances for both "good" and "evil". Or to put it another way - political or technological change doesn't overcome human nature

True. But the French Revolution went wrong at breakneck speed in a lot of ways. And France's history since has been rather tumultuous. (How many different forms of government have they officially had?)

While I agree, these are merely the exceptions. Sure, things can go great and well (after a long period of time). However, the following needs to be taken into account

1. The fatalities and economic losses

2. The high possibility that the power goes to the wrong hand.

3. The good possibility that the power doesn't change hands and we are stuck with even less freedom.

4. Revolutions make the country very vulnerable which is an opportunity for enemies.

Small and secure changes are better in my opinion. Revolutions have a high risk of going wrong.

If you asked me 3 years later, you'll get a different response. Having lived through this so-called Arab spring, I have now a very conservative view for revolution.

If you've got a really bad dictator, or an entrenched feudal system, then a revolution is probably worth it. If not, you'll probably end up with a dictator, and there's a chance they won't be so benevolent.

There's genuine problems with US Democracy. The lack of a good voting system (preferential, or better still - acceptance voting) means a stable two-party system.

Statistically, protest actions can be beneficial, as long as they don't go too far. No politician wants angry people on the streets. Media tends to cover it. It's a good way for a minority of people to have a huge impact (for better, or worse, depending on whether you support what the protesters want).

The problem is, a lot of protests are pretty much zero sum movements. They are things which half the people want, and half the people don't want (environmental protection, gun rights, gay marriage). A protest for something which would be popular, but most people don't really think about could be more useful.

Wasn't that the one that introduced Robespierre and the Reign of Terror, and then later another despot? Sure, Napoleon was talented and introduced the civil code, but it was still another example of the guy with the biggest stick making the rules.

They were uneducated people who went through a system that only valued rich and well connected people. What did you expect?

Take lessons from the past, and APPLY them to your context.

I'm not saying that rioting and killing Obama is the solution. I'm saying that using the government's tools (petitioning) against them is ridiculous. You have to show people you're angry, you have to show your entire country you're angry and you want things to change, laws to change, the system to change. You have to take a real stand.

EDIT : As I mentioned in some other comment. The revolution brought us Democracy, which later spread across all Europe, and brought us the beautiful Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen which is used everywhere in the world as standards (not always respected though). I believe the revolution was the most beautiful part of France history. Napoleon was our anger which was still resonating years after the Monarchy. We're calm people now.

You can take a stand without violence.

You can take a stand without destruction.

Hell, ask Snowden if he would rather have organized online action to protest, or people in the street beating other people...

In the short term, maybe. But in the long term, it was a catalyst that forced reforms (and further upheavals) across the whole continent; it was a large stick to carry at each negotiating table for freedoms, human rights and so on.

In the same way, the Russian Revolution eventually generated Stalinism and brought suffering to the Soviet block, but it was a tremendous inspiration (and often brought material help) to workers' rights movements in many other countries, de facto creating the "social Europe" we currently enjoy (or used to).

EDIT: it's also funny to see these comments on American websites. Hello, your country was built by an armed revolution that was as nationalistic in practice as it was universalistic in inspiration. As certain modern philosophers from the Five Boroughs used to say, "you gotta fight for your right to party" :)

I'd recommend reading Fatal Purity if you want to understand just how evil the French Revolution really was - even the architects became its victims in huge numbers. The terror is not something I would wish on any country, and it is no way comparable to the American revolution in scope or brutality, that and the Russian revolution are fascinating periods but great examples of why revolution often ends in disaster for the countries involved, and frequently ends in dictatorship.

The Russian revolution started relatively peacefully, moved on to a brutal civil war, and then to draconian dictatorship (under Lenin) in just a few short years, then in 21 the resulting wars and disastrous economic policy caused a famine that killed 6 million people before NEP was introduced. And that was well before Stalin began to terrorise the country. Again, I think you're romanticising events which were nasty, brutish, and mostly harmful in their effects.

I'd argue European socialism (the social Europe we currently enjoy) evolved more from the evolution of liberal democracy and liberal capitalism in a peaceful society than from Marxism - many of the things Marx & Engels criticised have been peacefully removed (child labour, alienation of workers from means of production, lack of unions etc). Granted the UK and other European nations have other problems, but let's not forget how far we came peacefully, and how much of a set back to civilisation war and revolution really are.

Thanks for the info.

You might want to also check out The Anatomy of Revolution - it details the broad life cycles revolutions succeed through. It concludes that revolutions are overall detrimental to lasting change in a society. The American Revolution is discussed in order to explain why it turned out atypically.

Thanks for the recommendation, looks interesting. My other favourite book in this area is To the Finland Station, of course the NSA knows that already as I bought it on Amazon :)

European socialism owes more to the threat of Stalinism than we like to admit; western governments were forced into improving conditions for their working classes mostly by the threat of civil unrest, while leftist parties and unions benefited enormously from their soviet connections - both in motivational and economic terms. As soon as the USSR disappeared, now-unchecked European elites promptly started renegotiating workers rights, pushing salaries down in real terms pretty much across the whole of Europe; public services were dismantled and sold off, and welfare benefits were slashed. Leftist parties have lost most of their economic independence and are now captive to established interests, so their policies are all over the place. Of course there are other elements influencing this state of things, but the post-89 trend is quite clear and has a lot to do with the disappearance of an armed contingent of "reds" on the horizon, like it happened with the Space Race.

I know my history well enough, I'm not denying that revolts often (but not always) result in weak political structures which are prone to collapse in the short term; you only need to look at the current wave of Middle-Eastern "springs" for confirmation - from Tunisia to Egypt, in practical terms they're now worse-off than under their dictators. Still, they play a often necessary role in putting the fear of consequences in the heart of established elites who would otherwise refuse to change; places like Saudi Arabia are now grudgingly considering improving conditions of their women, for example.

European socialism owes more to the threat of Stalinism than we like to admit; western governments were forced into improving conditions for their working classes mostly by the threat of civil unrest

With respect I completely disagree with this - the reforms to working conditions and the state of our societies in Europe which have happened since Engels wrote 'The conditions of the working classes in England' or Marx 'Capital' have improved because of gradual progress in western democracies introduced because of peaceful protest and people working within the democratic process, on things like mandatory schooling, no child labour, minimum wages, right to assembly, health services, benefits etc. That's a far longer time-frame and was not influenced by the USSR, either in funding western political groups or acting as a sort of bogieman for western governments.

I disagree that revolutions and the attendant violence and destruction are necessary or useful in deposing tyranny, quite often they produce the opposite effect, as the two examples you initially brought up show.

When Marx and Engels wrote their books many "western democracies" didn't even exist, so they weren't responsible for any progress made until the end of WWII. Democracies themselves didn't come to be "peacefully": most European kings had to be forcefully deposed one way or another, after they refused substantial reforms for almost 150 years since the French Revolution (in fact, they spent most of the XIX century actually restricting individual freedoms and ramping up censorship powers). Until WWI, there had been almost no progress in many continental countries on universal suffrage, which of course resulted in no progress on all the other subjects you mention. The period between wars was politically very lively but certainly not peaceful nor "within the democratic process": every country had its fair share of events where police or army would indiscriminately shoot at protestors, strikes would get violent, and so on. The political frameworks born from WWII were then characterised, in most Western European countries, by schemes that basically reproduced the Cold War disposition, with a varying degree of direct dependence of local leftist parties from Moscow. The presence of a well-equipped "hard left" made it possible for softer alternatives to thrive: the Overton window was anchored by the Soviet State on one side.

The only country where you can try and talk of a continuous peaceful development is post-Cromwell Britain, which is why this country is still, in many ways, the less socialist of the lot (and getting less so by the day, I could add). Still, the influence of Soviet ideals was so strong even in this land, that there was stuff like the Cambridge Five, something that today is completely unconceivable.

Violent revolutions are not always necessary, but they can (and did) provide inspiration for wider movements.

And a few years later they made Napoleon an emperor and he went on a spree of military conquest across the whole of Europe. Great example.

After a brief period of show trials and bloodletting.

It could be argued that the French Revolution effectively ended its cycle in 1870 with the Third Republic, after two more upheavals (1830, 1848), two emperors and a few less powerful kings. The country ended up a lot better than it was at the beginning, and grew tremendously on almost all counts.

Also, it was one of the most interesting periods for arts and litterature ever to occur. Great example indeed

Pretty much every place that ever one it's independence did so through violence or the threat of violence (yes, India very much included).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unre...

Boston Tea Party?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com