The accusation of "violence" or "terrorism" no longer has the negative meaning it used to have. It has aquired new clothing; a new color. It does not divide, it does not discredit; on the contrary, it represents a center of attraction. Today, to be "violent" or a "terrorist" is a quality that ennobles any honorable person, because it is an act worthy of a revolutionary engaged in armed struggle against the shameful military dictatorship and its atrocities." -Carlos Marighella
Why is it failure? Violence has solved many conflicts over time, it is judged, dismissed as inhuman and brutal, always in favor of diplomacy and negotiation, which granted, also work. But violence is an underrated method. Political freedom fighting will hopefully never die. Political violence represents a cause, it gives people hope, it keeps them going. Political violence is always the beginning of great change.
Give me an example of any conflict "resolved" with violence, and I'll give you an example of how a peaceful resolution would have been ultimately proven to be more effective in the long term.
Every single large-scale revolution that has happened in history: Russia, France, The United States of 'Murica. Then there are the wars themselves, which over contrasting ideologies, which would have NEVER compromised at the table, gave a clear winner: World War I and II for example. Then there is political violence used for propaganda and awareness. This is most seen in the 70's with the PFLP, PLO, Brigate Rosse, Baader-Meinhof, Tupamaros, etc.. We can see what brought change in the Middle East: the war in Libya, the one in Syria. Necessary conflicts of ideology must be solved through violence, there is no compromise of extremes. Unnecessary conflicts, like Iraq II, Afghanistan I and II, (Soviet and American), Vietnam, always end in colossal failure, and that is where negotiations should take place.
"Terrorism has lost the negative meaning it used to have"... I hope that Carlos dude is talking just for himself? Otherwise in what universe does he live in? Anyway, terrorism is a specific kind of violence and although what can be seen as freedom fighting by one party can be experienced as terror by the other terrorism is rarely a good thing (it's also rarely a revolutionary thing).
The hand of vengeance found the bed To which the purple tyrant fled The iron hand crushed the tyrants head And became a tyrant in his stead. -William Blake By the way have you actually studied the French revolution? It was fucked up and ridiculous. the violence perpetrated during the French revolution, in my opinion, was completely pointless in the end. Years and years of senseless violence for what? For someone like Napoleon to come along and seize power. The ideals and philosophies that came out of and helped start the French revolution, however, changed the world.
The overthrow of the ancien regime was very useful and arguably neccesary as well but it ended tragicly indeed. I guess it is the history that will determine which violent actions will be regarded as usefull or even good and which as atrocities. I think violence definately can has it's purpose in extreme situations. It really depends who is partaking and with what motives. Terrorism seems always atrocious to me.
That humans STILL use violence to solve what can only be described as problems that we,ourselves have created, (who else causes problems for ourselves?) pretty much shows to me, that basic evolutionary forces have not and possibly may not, be solved by intellect. Lizard-brain abides. And what exactly is this "good" of which you speak? If there is a "good",wouldn't that imply that an end result of violence is possible when that 'good" is attained,thereby ending the need for violence? Or is it just endless war that excites you? The horrific way humans treat each other, "lower" forms of life and the earth itself in many/most cases will unfortunately continue to provide you with a reason to believe that violence is a "good" in and of itself.
Russian revolution - lead to Stalin's dictatorship French revolution - lead to Emperor Napoleon American Revolution - if we had just stayed a british colony, not only would we have been spared the revolution, but slavery would have ended much sooner and without the civil war. also, we'd probably have single payer universal healthcare already.
I thought the american civil war was not fought only over the topic of slavery so you arguably go a bit too fast there with drawing conclusions. Well ok, you said probably
Violence, outside of self defense, is ALWAYS bad. Revolutions are fought in self-defense of the violence initiated by governments. Coercion is a form of violence, there for so is taxation, conscription, and any other government fiat that tells an individual what they can / cannot do peacfully with their own property. If you claim to be anti violence, than you MUST be anti government. The German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer pointed out there are two mutually exclusive ways of acquiring wealth. One is through production, which he called the "economic means". The other, which is much more simple as it does not require productivity, is the seizure of another's goods or services by the use of force. This he called the "political means."
"Necessary conflicts of ideology must be solved through violence, there is no compromise of extremes." There is no such thing as a "necessary conflict" unless you abandon compromise. Compromise is the only sane and practical way to resolve the dissonance of extremes. . . . oh, and to follow up: what e7m8 said.
