"What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." Thomas Jefferson. Letter to William Smith.
"A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets." Napoleon Bonaparte
Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary.
Mahatma Gandhi, 'Satyagraha Leaflet No. 13,' May 3, 1919
Is radical and violent revolution justifiable?
Due Monday 12/6
67 comments:
I believe that radical but not always violent revolution is required in order for freedom to truly exist. Only when a government refuses to react to peaceful protest does violence become necessary. A perfect example would be the regulations on industry at the start of the industrial revolution. The work standards were horrible and people were paid extremely little to do horrible jobs, now look at today and you won’t find a single working environment like that. Surely a radical change took place in the industrial workplace, but where were the guns and bullets, or the bombs and bayonets? A revolution does not always need violence to succeed however if you take a look at the American Revolution, it is sometimes necessary. Initially the colonists simply wanted representation in Parliament and to have the taxes placed on them alleviated. Only when Britain flat out refused without compensation did the violent revolution start. Gandhi says that a revolution gained through violence will pass in time, but I say to that, that America is the longest lasting single form of government currently on the face of the globe and we most certainly used violence to win our revolution.
This is a loaded question, and in my opinion it cannot be answered without considering the historical context of the revolution in question. The French Revolution took place in an entirely different world when judged against the American Revolution, and the revolution led by Gandhi is as equally foreign in comparison. The location, leadership, and opposing force are some of the most important factors that shape a revolution and can be the difference between condemning or accepting violence. Mahatmas Gandhi is best known for leading his country to victory during a revolution against the British government, but Gandhi was a remarkable leader. His methods made British violence during the struggle appear both foolish and outrageous, but he was no ordinary man. Gandhi was influenced by religion and had deep philosophical ideas and principles that guided him. To Gandhi, there was no excuse for violence when engaging in a struggle, but men of years prior held no such conceptions. In the days of the French Revolution, all of Europe was an open battleground, accustomed to warfare and bloodshed, and using violence to achieve a goal was a normal response to conflict. The religious ideals that guided Gandhi were also often corrupt during the days of the French Revolution. The Church was the main religious institution of the time and its track record of brutality against enemies and dishonesty did not place an emphasis on violence being immoral. This does not justify the violence of the French Revolution and its Reign of Terror, but it offers an explanation as to why it happened and spun so far out of control. The Reign of Terror is appalling in any day in age, but the French Revolution lacked that major voice saying how wrong it was and there were simply too many voices urging it forward. The American Revolution was less bloody than the French Revolution, but it did not pass peacefully. I believe it should be viewed as the model revolution of its time period, because the amount of violence it exhibited was not disproportionate to the revolution itself. The Americans simply could not have won the revolution and achieved the freedoms they were fighting for without resorting to violence against their British oppressors. They had a just cause they believed in, and they used only the amount of violence necessary to defeat their opponent, it was not a wide-spread massacre of innocent people. Today this question is still relevant. It seems nearly impossible to overcome tyranny or what is perceived as tyranny without using violence, and as long as it does not spin radically out of control, it is sometimes necessary.
This is a loaded question, and in my opinion it cannot be answered without considering the historical context of the revolution in question. The French Revolution took place in an entirely different world when judged against the American Revolution, and the revolution led by Gandhi is as equally foreign in comparison. The location, leadership, and opposing force are some of the most important factors that shape a revolution and can be the difference between condemning or accepting violence. Mahatmas Gandhi is best known for leading his country to victory during a revolution against the British government, but Gandhi was a remarkable leader. His methods made British violence during the struggle appear both foolish and outrageous, but he was no ordinary man. Gandhi was influenced by religion and had deep philosophical ideas and principles that guided him. To Gandhi, there was no excuse for violence when engaging in a struggle, but men of years prior held no such conceptions. In the days of the French Revolution, all of Europe was an open battleground, accustomed to warfare and bloodshed, and using violence to achieve a goal was a normal response to conflict. The religious ideals that guided Gandhi were also often corrupt during the days of the French Revolution. The Church was the main religious institution of the time and its track record of brutality against enemies and dishonesty did not place an emphasis on violence being immoral. This does not justify the violence of the French Revolution and its Reign of Terror, but it offers an explanation as to why it happened and spun so far out of control. The Reign of Terror is appalling in any day in age, but the French Revolution lacked that major voice saying how wrong it was and there were simply too many voices urging it forward. The American Revolution was less bloody than the French Revolution, but it did not pass peacefully. I believe it should be viewed as the model revolution of its time period, because the amount of violence it exhibited was not disproportionate to the revolution itself. The Americans simply could not have won the revolution and achieved the freedoms they were fighting for without resorting to violence against their British oppressors. They had a just cause they believed in, and they used only the amount of violence necessary to defeat their opponent, it was not a wide-spread massacre of innocent people. Today this question is still relevant. It seems nearly impossible to overcome tyranny or what is perceived as tyranny without using violence, and as long as it does not spin radically out of control, it is sometimes necessary.
I feel that a revolution is an action of the people that takes place when new freedoms are considered necessary by the people. In the American Revolution the colonists felt it necessary to break away from England because of unfair taxation. Gandhi started his peaceful revolution because he felt that the British where doing an injustice to his people and that change was necessary. One was violent and one was only violent on one side.
The Americans felt it necessary to drive out all British forces from the colonies because without that the only thing that would happen to those who spoke out was violence. It was a different time than when Gandhi led his revolution based on peace and love. Many of the people who were leaders of the revolution would have been killed if they had tried such peaceful methods of retaliation because it was a much more violent time. Many revolutions that took place in history before the American revolution were extremely violent and it could be said that the American revolution looked very tame compared to most revolutions before it (and some after it ex. The French Revolution) it was a new kind of revolution one that strove for economic gain rather than a real gain of power after the war the colonies stayed relatively the same just freer economically.
In Gandhi’s case they wanted more rights and they used peaceful methods because it made the
British atrocities stand out more. The world had changed much in between these two revolution s and because of that a new war was being fought one for the attention of the world showing them that the British were in the wrong and that the people of India needed to be free. There is no right way to revolt only ways that work in certain situations.
While revolution is seen as a radical change to an existing system, sometimes violence is not the best way to attain certain liberties or freedoms. There will come a time in a country's history that a law is passed or an idea is established that is not favorable to many of the population. Willing to make themselves be heard, this population will express its doubts and demand change. If the government does little to change its ruling, the population may start a revolution. Revolution is a necessary step in the role of government, as bad ideas will be shown and crushed by the general populace. Violence is not always the best way to make oneself know, however.
There have been times in history where violence has been justifiable, however. The American Revolution is a perfect example, as the British oppressed the Americans for too long. The colonists felt so detached and abused by the British that they began to refer to themselves as Americans, alienating themselves from the British entirely. When the British responded by laying down harsher laws and regulations, such as the Stamp Act and the Quartering Act, the newly formed Americans wrote the Declaration of Independence and formally detached from the British Crown. Violence was a central figure in the early conflict and the American Revolution itself, as events such as the Boston Massacre and dumping the tea in Boston Harbor showed the anger of both sides. The Americans finally realized that more violence was needed in order to show Britain that they wanted them out of their land, and the long conflict that followed showed the American's determination. In instances such as these, violence is justifiable in order to stage a successful revolution.
There are instances, however, where violence will not solve any problems. In the case of Mahatma Gandhi, the British were once again abusing their power over one of their colonies. Gandhi, being the intelligent pacifist that he is known for, realized that fighting against the well-armed British would spell defeat for the nation of India. He then started promoting peaceful protests, as any violence used against the Indians would look like a terrible decision on the part of the British. He was successful, and though he died before seeing the true fruits of his labor, his words live on today.
In most situations, violence is not justifiable in the ways of revolution. There are other ways to show an idea or solution to a problem, and they will have less consequences. While violent revolution is always radical, radical revolution does not always have to be violent.
Radical revolution is justifiable but violence is not always necessary. The answer to this can truly be attained when considering specific factors which influence it. A revolution takes place when a group of people decide they want change, and that change involves a radical change to bring about something necessary in order to keep society at peace. In France, when the first and second estate in the General Estates kept the third estate from participating in the government, the common people knew representation was crucial and they vowed to form a constitution. They did not start a war against the nobility; rather, they formed The National Assembly and through time, gained the approval from the King. Even though this was a part of the French Revolution, it was a significant change achieved without violence. When specific liberties or rights are abused in some way by a form of government and are manipulated to a certain degree, violence comes in to play to gain back those rights. If this degree is not yet reached, peace and change can be attained through negotiations. However, when the line is crossed, violence becomes a necessary act to restore order in society and to fight off oppression from tyrannical power. During the American Revolution, the British were heavily taxing the colonists, and when they asked repeatedly to limit it, the British refused time after time. The increased taxing was causing a tremendous burden on the colonists while the British gained revenue for their own personal benefit. The colonists knew something had to be done and therefore took the necessary approach and fought for their independence. To do this, there needed to be some form of violence to bring about change for them to show that unity does have power in the face of those who take away freedom. If this violence had not taken place, perhaps America would not be what it has become today, a role model of independence and liberty for the rest of the world.
I do believe that radical revolution is justifiable and in many cases violence is one of the only ways to get the change wanted or needed. Just like Thomas Jefferson said, revolutions are a necessary evil in order to maintain a people's liberties. If the government rules for too long without a rebellion for it to worry about then odds are that the officials will become too comfortable and start abusing their powers. Rebellions are what scare them back into check and keep them thinking about the people they serve. Violence is acceptable only when the system of government has swayed too far off it's tracks and when a complete radical change is necessary for the people to maintain thier rights. However, if only small changes are needed then violence is by no means acceptable. Just like the protests and rallies that just occured in the U.S. People were unhappy with some of the ways that our government was handleing situations and they put together a non-violent rebellion. However, if violence did occur, it would be totally unacceptable because our whole government setup was not the issue and small riots were enough too get the governments attention.
Something like the French Revolution is an example of when violence is acceptable. France was in total debt and the people, especially the third estate, were losing thier rights as citizens. They were getting the burden of heavier and heavier taxes and Louis would not listen to them. The government was in dier need for a change and not just small changes. Violence was acceptable in thier case in order to "refresh the tree of liberty from time to time." Just like Napoleon said, a revolution wouldn't be a revolution without it's "bayonets", it would just be an idea. Indeed, some of the violence got out of hand during the French Revolution, but in order to get the change that the people wanted and needed, a violent revolution was necessary. So, radical revolutions are necessary to keep any government in check, but violent revolutions are only needed in severe situations.
Radical and violent revolutions have always occurred throughout history whether it has been welcome, or justified. However, whether or not a violent revolution is EVER justifiable is a suitably two sided argument. It comes down to whether you believe in the saying "The ends justify the means." Do you ultimately believe that killing a few innocent people and some government troops is worth your liberties and freedom? Most rebels would obviously say yes. However, many, such as Ghandi, does not see this as a true victory because it has been attained through violence. Ghandi for one, does not believe that you can justify killing innocents even if it is for the greater good. He also seems to make the pragmatic argument that if the revolution is violent, the changes put in place by this revolution won't last, which does make sense to a degree. In the end, you have to come down on one side, and personally, I do believe that the ends can justify the means. Yes, we will be killing some innocents along the way with family and friends who will dearly mourn their loss, however, what is their loss compared to the suffering of millions through a nation who are oppressed daily? The harsh reality is, that the suffering of a few is totally eclipsed by the suffering of many many more. Of course, this assumes that the revolution has good reason to take place. Therefore, I would like to place a qualification on my belief that radical and violent revolution is justifiable. It is only justifiable if the despotism imposed on the people is so great that it is nearly unbearable. It is only justifiable if the government can truly be considered evil and is truly destructive to the general populace's welfare.
I believe that radical revolutions are required in order for a country to truly be free. Violence during the revolution sometimes does have its place. Only when a country’s government refuses to acknowledge or conform to the radical revolution is violence needed and acceptable. A radical revolution is sometimes needed to keep a government in check, when a government takes the wrong turn the radicals within the country either put them on the right path, or overthrow them. If the government does listen to the radicals peaceful protest it is alright for them to start to use violence, however if the changes wanted are small and minuet then violence does not fit into that situation. And if the people’s rights, especially their natural ones, then violence and radical revolutions are needed to protect those.
Many have tried to answer this question, over the course of history; all of whom failed (in my consideration). Undoubtedly, I too will fail to definitively answer this question. First, what is a “justifiable” mean? This definition is different to everyone in the world. Through the course of this response I will hopefully create a definitive definition of this word. Possible easier to define is what a radical and violent revolution is. These revolutions include everything from the Cassock Rebellion (Russia), to The Revolution of the People (China), to The American Revolution (America). What do these all have in common? They all contain an idea. Each had a party striving to express their rights and a party striving to keep the other party at low. Each of them also was directly and indirectly responsible for many deaths. Now is that justifiable? It is my belief that everyone should be able to have a voice, but some voices should not and must not be heard. There are ideas in the world that must be censored for the sake of the progress of the human race. Ideas can be detrimental in the hands of some. There must be an authoritative figure to lead the masses out of chaos and into progression. One person must have the wisdom to seek the best route to success. The people cannot rule because there is no general will. There will always be those who deviate. Although to obtain that authoritative force, there must be radical revolution, based on the current global situation. Revolutions totally depend on the situations geographically. When the rebelling force is smaller than the opposing force nonviolence must be used. The rebelling forces have little chance of defeating the opposing force physically. The rebels must let the opposing force assimilate into the rebels. This is the case with Gandhi and his revolution. When the rebelling force is as large or larger it is better to use force. Trying to sway people mentally is not easy. As long as the rebelling force is projected to have casualties less than 10% it is justifiable to stage a violent revolution. This is seen with The Revolution of the People. So that is only a small piece of what I think is justifiable. There is much more to write about, unfortunately this is just a blog post and not a thesis paper. QED
Radical revolution can be justifiable if there is corruption in the government or society that causes injustice and problems for the citizens. Whenever there are issues that interfere with people's rights, everyone should be able to revolt and help with freedom for all. On the other hand, not all revolutions are right. In the case of the French Revolution, rebellions can cause terrible death and fighting within a country. This in turn can sometimes lead to worse conditions for the citizens through crime. In addition, the economy can collapse in a society in revolt and this can take years to improve. Even though many strive to improve the society through revolt, this does not always work. Revolution does not have to be violent. It can take place, for example similar to the ways of Gandhi, through peace. In order to prevent mass murdering, there is often a necessity to be peaceful. Peace can be just as effective as violence and can therefore cause great change without hurting anyone. Sometimes though, the corruption is impossible to deal with. When it comes to this point, many feel that violence is the only solution to the issues. Although I do not necessarily agree with violence, if there are too many problems that block people's rights, then it is needed to help. In the end, radical revolution can be justifiable as long as there is enough corruption to lead to its use.
Before the French Revolution, France’s people were mistreated and starving on the street. They were being abused by the government and a bloody revolution was caused because of this. Napoleon would say that a violent revolution such as the French Revolution is the only way to be successful, but Gandhi would disagree. Obviously in an ideal world, violent revolutions would never happen, but the reality is that they are inevitable. I don’t think that you can ever justify a radical and violent revolution, but they certainly are necessary. I wish that every revolution could be as peaceful as Gandhi’s, but that could never happen. Every political situation is different and no government can please all the people, so a revolution has to occur to keep the government in check sometimes. If the ruling body is never in fear of replacement or revolution, then they cannot be effective leaders of the people because they will become corrupt and self serving. For example, the French Revolution occurred because France’s people experienced this and needed liberation.
Even though I believe revolutions are necessary and that they can sometimes only be successful through violence, I do not think that a radical and violent revolution is justified. Violence should not be fought with violence, and in the words of Gandhi “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”. So, despite the fact that sometimes revolution is needed, and sometimes it must be violent, this does not make it right.
This is a question that does not have a clear cut “yes” or “no” answer. At times, a radical revolution is justified, or a violent, or both, or neither. Oftentimes when these such revolutions have occurred, they may not be justified, and are in fact a result of heightened emotions and a leader that projects them towards the current administration of the country or region. In the case of the French Revolution, the radical aspect was perhaps necessary; the poverty levels were horrendous and the overall quality of life for anyone that wasn’t nobility was shameful. The “absolute authority” doctrine had gotten out of hand, and the majority of the population was suffering. A complete overhaul of French government was definitely called for. However, the violence that was involved is questionable. Violence is not always needed to make a point. Mahatma Gandhi is an excellent example of this. He and his followers practiced “Satyagraha” – nonviolent rebellion. After pursuing this policy, India was able to gain freedom from Great Britain. However, this is not to say that nonviolent rebellion always works. It may not have been effective during the French Revolution simply because of the nature of the population and the way that Europe viewed fighting as the only way to settle a dispute. Violence has proved time and time again to result in radical gains. Violence often makes the point that the issue at hand is worth taking lives. And sometimes it is hard to avoid the violence, as a mountain builds – one side makes a threat, the other responds, and it spins out of control until one side realizes that the other is too powerful for them to overcome. Once again, whether or not radicalism and violence is justifiable must be examined for each individual situation. However, I feel that these means should be viewed as last resorts, when all other techniques to change the distasteful situation have been exhausted.
I believe that radical revolution is justifiable because some governments in the past have needed a considerable amount of change to make them represent the people to the greatest extent. I also believe that violent revolution is not always justifiable because radical change has been done before without violence. In the past radical revolutions have been needed, like the French Revolution. The First and Second estates were trying to control Estates General because they were aristocratic and part of the nobility. This left the Third Estate out of the pictures, which represented 97% of the French Population, which was not at all fair to those people. Also, France was in a considerable amount of debt because of the lavish spending by Kings Louis XIV, XV, and XVI. Radical revolution was needed at this time because of the major crisis’s facing France, and a lot of bloodshed occurred because of it. In India however, the Indian people were being unfairly controlled by the British and Mohandas Gandhi decided radical change was needed in the government, but he believed that non-violent resistance was needed, just like Martin Luther King Jr. in America when he used non-violent resistance to oppose racism. If two leaders can cause massive change in their countries without violence and bloodshed, why shouldn’t all conflicts be solved in this way? History repeats itself all the time, and wars have not seemed to ever have a concrete solution to the problems at hand, they just seem to make them worse. Overall I believe that radical revolution can be needed and justifiable, but violence is not the best way to solve conflict and should rarely be used.
Revolution: a change in idea or an overthrow of a ruler or government. Almost all revolutions have at least one of three major qualities, an idea, sacrifice, and violence. In order for there to be a revolution you need to have an idea that is different and conflicts with the current social norm. Most revolutionary ideas are based on equality, where everybody gets the same fair treatment. Though there are some exceptions such as Adolf Hitler, who was more of a tyrant than a revolutionist. In almost every revolution there are sacrifices, on a more personal level that includes friendship, lost of property, and wealth. On the large scale the sacrifices can be destruction of land and human lives. And lastly every revolution includes violence on either side. Whether it be a mob fight or an actual war there will almost always be violence during a revolution. This is because the people who are higher above and are content with the system see no need to fret about the lives below them. And once they are being challenged they are obviously going to resist, and most definitely violently. And in order for a revolution to happen, you sometimes have to trump the violence started by those you are trying to supersede. Now the question arises, is a violent revolution justifiable, meaning if a revolutionist is violent in attaining his/her revolution, is it really a revolution? Seeing that the more different the two opposing sides become the more they seem to be the same? Well there have been some revolutions that were violent and are justifiable. For example the American Revolution, the Americans fought the British in order to attain their civil liberties which were being suppressed by the English Parliament. This revolution ended as a success and the declaration of independence was created, so was the constitution and an alliance between America and Britain was also created. So in actuality it was a success. Another bloody revolution is the French Revolution. In the French revolution the people were tired of their incompetent ruler King Louis XVI. There were many mini wars, assassinations and executions in their goal of a liberal society of equality. The revolution was a success but it took a long time for France to gain its goals and become a constitutional republic. But a revolution in which the was violence created by one side was during the Indian Independence Movement led by Mahatma Ghandi. Ghandi used non-violence as his weapon against the British to achieve Independence for India from Britain. This is an instance where violence is not always necessary for a revolution to be successful. So is a violent revolution a justifiable one? I believe that violence may be necessary in order for a revolution to succeed and become a reality though it is most preferable for revolutions to be done in a civil manner with negotiations and popular vote of the people. But sometimes that isn’t an option and one has to do what one can do in order to achieve their goals and the goals of the people.
As the quote from Thomas Jefferson says, every country needs a revolt now and again to keep the government on its toes. While this may be true, it does not mean that radical and violent revolution is necessary. Radical ideas themselves are necessary for a balance of social interests, but violent revolts are not always so. Ghandi is a perfect example of one with radical ideas but not achieving victory through violence. Ghandi was able to free his people in India without resorting to violence, which provides a perfect counter-argument for violence being necessary in a revolt. Therefore, violent revolt is not justifiable. Revolt in itself lies in more of a gray area, however. One would say that the Indians under Ghandi were rallying together for freedom, which justifies their revolt. This is based on perspective, the Civil War being an opposite example. Besides the somewhat ironic fact that the Confederates were fighting for slavery, the opposite of freedom, they were still fighting for the freedom to exercise their own laws and customs without oppression from another power. Looking at the Civil War with historical hindsight, we would say that the North was right in re-conquering the South. But then can we say that the Indians were right for wanting freedom from the British? Each revolt throughout history is affected by the perspective with which we look back on it. Therefore, revolt itself is not a thing that can be justified in general; each separate revolt and the actions taken within it must be viewed separately.
The question of whether or not a violent and radical revolution is justifiable is one that I think has no real answer. Whether or not violence should be used or needs to be used depends completely and totally on the situation at hand. In some revolutionary situations, violence may not be an option, while in others; it may be the only way to combat oppression. The situation and scope of and about the revolution determine whether or not violence should be condemned or accepted. For example, Mahatma Gandhi led a successful nonviolent revolution. His nonviolent tactics made the British policies of aggression appear foolish and oppressive, drawing support to their cause. Gandhi was also a philosophical mind and used many philosophical principles like Thoreau’s doctrine of civil disobedience to guide him in his actions. According to Gandhi, violence was not the answer. In the case of the French revolution, an authoritative leader, or focal point or leader was missing to guide the rebelling masses, which lead to the unrest and anarchy that caused The Reign of Terror. While whether or not this violence and the killing of innocents is justifiable is definitely debatable, it is explainable. The lack of a leader and organization is one reason why the French Revolution burst into violence, but the political climate of Europe and the era in general also contributed to the development of the French Revolution. Finally, there is the American Revolution. When compared to the campaigns led by the French and Gandhi, it appears as a middle ground, a sort of balance between two extremes. There was a fair share of violence; however, there was no uncontrolled, un-aimed aggression. Given the situation at hand, there was simply no way the Americans could have won their revolution nonviolently. However, the violence used was in large part contained violence, and only what was necessary to successfully complete the mission at hand. In conclusion, as long as violence in a revolution does not spin out of control to the point where there are mass killings of civilians, it is justifiable because at times, the only way to defeat and overcome oppression is through violence.
There can be no general answer to this question. By revolution’s nature itself, its causes and justifications are all circumstantial. Radical change to the system is useful to change to a more modern or effective body without waiting for the antiquated or ineffective body to sign its own death warrant, but this is in the same style as violence being useful to kill off any who disagree with you. In short, both methods can be the catalyst which many may believe a society needs, but there will always be doubt as to the true value of such a revolution. In American history, for example, the Industrial Revolution was an admirable way to peacefully promote fair working standards in an industry that had grown so competitive as to abuse its workers. Without abolishing the capitalistic nature that fuels American enterprise, this revolution was not necessarily radical. Despite several riots and messy strikes along the way, this revolution was also not a violent one. To this end, the American Industrial Revolution avoided extremes while forging what is undeniably a better system. However, also within American history, the War for Independence led to more controversy. Colonists who were essentially angry at their bonds to distant Britain cited such examples as . . . having to pay a full one-fiftieth of the taxes their British cousins did; supporting the British soldiers who were defending them from imposing foreign powers; and having their taxes on imports actually lowered for Britain to profit on customs, allowing everybody to save money. The colonists’ ideas that their own legislative bodies should have power essentially equal to that of Great Britain’s Parliament was certainly radical, and as can be predicted by the name, the War of Independence lacked in peaceful measures to resolve its conflicts what it made up for in unsound logic. These two Revolutions show how different revolutions can be, from their causes to their waging to their outcome. It is impossible to generalize accurately whether radical change or extreme violence can be justifiable.
Being the type of person I am (someone who doesn't agree with violence), it would be easy to answer with a "no" and build on that response. However, there are special cases that prove to be more complicated than that. The French Revolution is a great example of this. Prior to the Revolution, the country was in turmoil; within the monarchy there was an "inability to deal with new social realities and problems", such as the uneven distribution of wealth France acquired during its period of economic growth. Not to mention the unbalance of expenses and employment, and suppression of reform attempts by the French Parlements. Needless to say, the French Revolutionaries were no doubt at the end of their rope with the government and their society as a whole. I would be too. In this particular case, I would have to say that yes, radical and violent revolution is justifiable, as it would be in any other situation like this where it is a last resort of the people living in chaos.
In other cases, such Gandhi's stand against the British, violence would not be justifiable. It was not the only option, as he proved with s, harmless protests.
In my opinion, if you can find ways around violence in a conflict, then there is no need for brutality in order for change to come about. Thus, it depends upon the situation and type of people you are dealing with.
In my biased American opinion, some Violently radical revolutions are justifiable. Certainly radical revolutions are allowed and in fact necessary in order to improve a wrong, people do not just risk their lives for nothing, but for a cause that they believe in. One example of peaceful revolution was in Gandhi's India, where his true followers thought that by using civil disobedience they could paint themselves as the victims, gain support, and shape India the way their oppressors did not allow them. Ghandi was a man motivated more strongly by his morals than his desire to achieve his dream of a united India, and thus wanted to have no regrets in order to enjoy more fully the outcome of independence from Britain. American's simply did not choose the same path to freedom as Ghandi and much of that might be related to their respective time periods. In the 1700's, were America to do the same as Ghandi, the nonexistence of global news would gain them no allies or sympathizers. This was the time of colonization and no country with any new world possessions could aid America for fear of starting a trend. The only reason why France aided the patriots was to spite Britain and because they had few colonies in the new world. Because of the time period and other circumstances this revolution was justified because the people could find no alternative to achieve their ends. I think that it is only when a revolution fails to achieve any positive outcome that we look upon it as a negative event, for example American's look on the revolution as the birth of freedom and the French, upon their revolution as an ultimate failure. This was most likely because it lacked a solid leader to use the brakes when the revolutionaries veered from their path. Ultimately for the American Revolution, by taking Ghandi's path, the British simply would not have been under any pressure from any other country to release the colony because they were a world power without rival an to be honest the American's were not taxed as much as the English living in England and were pretty much under salutary neglect, and just would not be able to have the British pity them to the point of release. Overall, I think that violent revolution is sometimes necessary to overcome oppression, it is more like taking the lesser of two evils and seems to be a trend throughout history, so violent revolution althought obvioiusly not the ideal situation is necessary as long as the ultimate goal of freedom from oppression is maintained.
In History, many times a radical revolution goes hand in hand with violence, but then again there are radicals who don’t want to resort to violence. I think that it is true that a revolution is needed from time to time, but it cannot be guaranteed that all would be peaceful. Jefferson says that it is natural for there to be violent revolutions he says that they are needed, but Gandhi believes the opposite so it is definitely a two-sided opinion. I believe that radical revolutions are justifiable and necessary for liberty and freedom, but violence is not always justifiable. There have been revolutions in the past without violence, but in the case of the French perhaps violence was justifiable. Poverty levels were extremely high and the aristocracy was refusing to help, and they shut the 3rd estate out of the estates general. Things were getting out of hand and it may be hard to picture the French Revolution progressing without violence. Therefore, in that case, violence may have been justifiable. Gandhi thought differently about revolution and he protested peacefully and encouraged others to do the same. He was able to be peaceful, and many others followed his lead. He was able to create change with in his country with out the violence of the French Revolution. Therefore, this question can be seen from two different angles. Peaceful revolution can be achieved and people such as Gandhi were able to prove that. Others should follow their lead.
The question of whether violence is needed is a very important and tough question. There is no simple answer to this question. When I first read the question I believed that violence was certainly not necessary for a revolution but I after further consultation I believe there are some cases where a violent revolution is certainly necessary.
When I hear of a nonviolent revolution naturally the first thing that comes to my mind is the political and social change in a nonviolent manner led by Gandhi. Gandhi’s civil disobedience led to great and dramatic changes in India. Gandhi was able to lead this wholesale change because the British rulers that were holding the Indians behind because the British needed the Indians in order to prosper. The situation with the French Revolution was different. The French were being taken advantage of by the upper estates and the upper estates had a greater indirect control of the third estate. This led to a great imbalance in power. The numbers were similar in both situations with the oppressed being a much smaller proportion of the population. Violence is needed when the oppressed is a much smaller proportion because that is the way they have to gain power. The American Revolution is one instance where a minority about one-third was able to gain independence from another country and because of the relative equality of the sizes had to resort to force. The civil disobedience of Gandhi and the French Revolution are similar because it is a large number of impressed people revolting against a smaller number of impressers. Overall I feel that violence is necessary in many situations because it is one way a smaller group of people can gain power over a larger group. I think nonviolent revolution is the strongest because revolutions are often about the ability of a group of people to gain popular opinion. Nonviolent revolutions usually gain more power because they harm many fewer people whom can turn into supporters.
Personally, I am not a fan of violent rebellion, and I would have to agree with Gandhi’s quote, that “victory attained by violence is tantamount to defeat, for it is momentary.” Gandhi makes a very important point in this quote, and that is that violent victories are not lasting, even if they achieve their goals. If the victory is reached by violent means, then the losing side will be displeased and feel wronged. Even if they are subdued for a time, it will not end to problem. Their strong support for their ideals, and possibly a hatred for those who beat them, will continue to exist. Eventually they will get their own chance to rebel, and so violence will only lead to more violence, with each side feeling as if they were wronged. Nonviolent rebellion is gradual and takes longer, but it doesn’t result in one side forcing their views onto the other side. When the opposition continues to present their views in a nonviolent ways, then everyone is forced to consider the problems. It may take longer for either side to concede anything, but all concessions will be natural instead of forced. Even less progress is made, the progress will be more permanent, because there is less of a chance that the other side will react and revert to a previous state if they made the concessions themselves rather than being forced. Nonviolent revolution takes longer, but I feel that it has a more lasting effect on society. Furthermore, I am a firm believer in the idea that the means must justify the ends. If we want to change our government, then, in the course of revolution, we must hold ourselves to the standards that we want our government to embody. It is total hypocrisy if we murder others for our cause and then expect the government to protect our right to life.
I honestly think that radical and violent revolution can be justifiable under certain circumstances, although radical revolution is justifiable under many more then a violent revolution. A radical revolution implies a swift and abrupt change from one government to another, and that is almost always justifiable. Humans are corrupt beings and are bound to create an unstable or corrupted government at one point or another. In order to make a change from a government that doesn’t serve the people, it makes sense to do it quickly and efficiently if possible. I suppose it makes sense to want to take your time establishing a better government, but sometimes it’s extremely necessary to wipe out the old practices as quickly as possible for the general good of the people. On the other hand, Revolution that is violent can also be justified, although generally less often then the radical piece of it. In general, most people take the strategy ‘an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind’, saying violence never solves anything. However, I feel that those who usurp and take power by force or rule with it will only respond to force when people are trying to connect with them. I don’t think sitting down calmly with Louis the XVI and discussing things with him would have made him say, “Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize things were so bad with you. Here, have some money and some food, and I can reform government policy for you!” The only reason he really approved the National Assembly was because of peasant dissent and smaller rebellions. It’s violence that really speaks people and gets them to listen, and sometimes pretty words just aren’t going to cut it. In order for a threat to be made properly, there has to be some kind of force backing it, and for it to be successfully carried out and executed, there must be adequate backing to the claim made and the people have to be willing to use it. In order to go far, you need a method to your madness, and you need a way to effectively back your revolution—therefore, the need, however disputed, for violence.
Radical revolutions are justifiable in a situation where the government has become corrupt. A government that refuses to conform to the ideals and beliefs of its citizens and may even strip the natural rights each person is born with, and thus entitled to regard less. For us, we have a right to rebel if this happens. No body of people should be ruled by a government who doesn’t rule in their favor. A great example of this is seen with Gandhi. A wise man who ruled and acted based on his religions and deeply rooted beliefs. His tactics were widely influential and successful. He believed that peaceful protest was the path to take and there was no reason to engage in further physical struggles. So on the topic of violence it can go both ways. Never should you be violent for no reason, but sometimes it is necessary. The right approach would be peaceful protests, but if that’s ignored the next step is violence, it’s a given. This is necessary to enforce change in the society and to make sure every voice is heard. If changes are being made and protest are being recognized, then no violence shouldn’t be used; for you have no reason to.
Looking at revolutions throughout history most include some form of violence. That being said is it really justifiable to use violence in a revolution and if so to what point? Governments will always try to manage the people because those in power will always wish to remain in power. This natural principle that all people follow make peaceful revolutions extremely difficult. However non violent revolution is possible and because of this simply moving straight to violence is a little to radical. Most conflicts should be 1st resolved peacefully or within the current government system. if this does not work then moving to a more violent state may become necessary to accomplish the task at hand. The French revolution is one example of a revolution that escalated to violence to quickly. Rather then petition to the king they attacked in an unorganized fashion killing even those who caused no actual harm. This murder is not justifiable. A better example of a justifiable revolution is one that is not barbaric under any circumstance. The American revolution is an example of a revolution that should if any be followed. The Americans first petitioned to the king of England as well as peacefully protested English involvement without killing them such as the destruction of tea in Boston harbor. Finally after the Americans realize the English would not relinquish control they turned to more sinister methods of repelling the English. Is a peaceful revolution possible, yes but it is very unlikely a revolution is possible through peaceful methods but only under rare circumstance. As long as the revolution tries to dissolve the government in a peaceful and humane way first later violence is justifiable. An example of an effective peaceful revolution is that of Ghandi showing the possibilities of peaceful revolution. Violence will always lead to more violence as peace will lead to peace so only if there is no other way should one turn to violent means. As for the justification of a revolution, I believe a countries people should rebel if treated unfairly and as long as they follow guidelines and try peaceful options first then later violence and the over all revolution is justifiable.
A radical and violent revolution can only be justified under certain situations. If the government is tyrannical and totalitarian, a violent revolution may be one of the few ways to overthrow said government; although it should only be implemented when no other solution can be used. A tyrannical leader fears all ideals and opinions that do not cohere with their own. To overthrow the leader with only words will be useless; to overthrow with a demonstration of the people’s will in the form of a violent overthrow allows for the greatest chance of success. It can only work if there is a large amount of people participating and if group unity is achieved, but as I stated earlier, a violent overthrow should only be used in the direst of situations. For other times, a radical and passive revolution can also be used effectively. As illustrated by Mahatma Ghandi’s Indian independence movement in the first half of the 20th century. Ghandi is known throughout the world as the leader who resisted violent no matter how much violence he encountered; this can be shown in his famous quote, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” Ghandi’s example is still influencing the ideas in the 21st century. His choice of protesting was fasting for long periods of time. Ghandi would refuse to eat until his demands were met. For some, this can be seen as a radical form of protesting. Ghandi’s most famous protest was the Salt Satyagraha or the Salt March in 1930. Ghandi along with thousands of his followers walked 24 miles to Dandi to make salt instead of buying and paying the British tax. Mahatma Ghandi’s success in freeing India from British rule is the epitome of a radial yet, pacifist revolution. A radical and violent revolution cannot be justifiable if it had been used in India as shown by Ghandi’s achievement. A radical and violent revolution is necessary and should be used when all other options have failed.
Revolution, at its very core, is a society’s way of expressing an extensive and urgent need for change. As history has dictated, while nations and governments may attempt to serve their people to the best of their ability, this goal is not always met. Whether it be due to a corrupt leader, or poorly structured institutions, the engine of change has found its fuel in a variety of ways over past centuries. Radical and violent revolution, spurred by these causes, is circumstantial, and thus can be both justifiable and its opposite. When Mahatma
Gandhi said, “Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary”, he made reference to the idea of non-violent revolution, which he himself pioneered. He led a resistance to the British forces occupying India through reason and pacifism, eventually securing independence for his country. While this was a radical revolution, driving thousands of men out of the nation and establishing a new era for India, violence was both not used and not necessary. Unfortunately, as history books will read, not every struggle for power was treated in this manner. Overwhelmingly, most radical revolutions over the course of time have occurred in tandem with violence. Naturally, the threat of death allows those desiring change to be heard, but also incurs the response of such action. In some situations, this is the only option, and as unwanted as it may be, violence is the answer. American colonists would have never gained freedom from the British if it were not for bloodshed, fighting, and warfare. The result of such conflict created the longest lasting democracy in history, and a country that has shaped and reshaped the world many times over. In a failing society, violence is not always necessary, but revolution is.
I believe this question cannot be answered with an absolute yes or no. Each case of revolution and violence is significant to its time period. There are cases where radical revolution is justifiable and some cases where it is not. When considering the American Revolution, radical revolution was absolutely justifiable. Colonists were being oppressed by the very government that was supposed to ensure a positive society. The colonists dealt with one tax after another and spoke their minds about each one of them. It was not until the British pushed them to their limit that the colonists truly broke out in radical revolution. So for the case of the Americans, radical revolution is definitely justifiable. As for the violence, we should not be so quick to judge. While peaceful movements are seen as morally upright, violence was the only thing the British knew at the time. They would have easily crushed any and all protesters, violence was the norm. It was kill or be killed. Therefore, violence is justifiable for the colonists. Gandhi’s peaceful movement was much different from that of the Americans simply because it was a different time. To get his leaders to listen, Gandhi used peaceful movements. Killing someone at that time was terrible, morally wrong, much worse than the American Revolution. If people saw British leaders hurting people in peace movements, it would be catastrophic. Gandhi knew this and used this against the British. I honestly think that violence in this case would have been counterproductive. So, it all depends on which case one is talking about. In some cases radical revolution and violence is justifiable and for others it is not.
To start of, I think that revolution is basically always justifiable. As defined by Webster Dictionary a revolution is a “sudden, radical, or complete change, or a fundamental change in political organization; especially: the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed”. Even without this definition it is relatively easy to justify a revolution being radical. If it weren’t radical, it wouldn’t really be a revolution now would it? The most important part of this question is whether or not a revolution can be justifiably violent. This definitely depends on the context of the revolution.
For example, in terms of the American Revolution, I think violence was necessary and justifiable. American leaders tried their hand at diplomacy to no avail. The British monarchy and Parliament only ignored their complaints and demands. Americans wanted a better ruling body and to be separate from their suppressive mother country. Out of this the violence of the Revolution was born. In circumstances such as these I believe violence was justified. In a more general sense, I find that the only time violence can be justified is if certain things have happened; some sort of abuse or mistreatment by the ruling body, widespread rebellious feeling throughout the people, and attempt at diplomacy. I think the most important part of these three criteria is the diplomacy. If radical revolutionary groups don’t first try to talk to the rulers, violence is most definitely not justified.
This question can be argued numerous ways. For one, it completely depends on the situation and the people involved in it. On the other hand, if you break it down to the mere principle of the fact, in order to have a revolution (and actually be successful) there does indeed need to involve radicalism. Without radicalism, a revolution can easily be ignored or put down. Although radicalism does not go hand in hand with violence, it usually leads to or is accompanied by violence. In many cases, radicalism is not enough to follow through with a successful revolution; this is when violence is necessary. For example, in the American Revolution, the rebels could not simply fight for their cause using radicalism because they were overpowered by the British. The only way to free themselves of British rule was to use violence and overtake their British oppressors. Once they had achieved this, violence was no longer necessary and they were able to prosper as a nation. On the other hand, in situations involving people like Mahatmas Gandhi, violence is not always necessary. Gandhi advocated non-violent movement in order to free his nation of British oppression. Even though he was advocating for non-violence, a substantial amount of violence broke out as a result of his movement. Although most of the violence came from the British side of the quarrel, there was still violence involved, which goes to show that with any revolution comes at least some amount of violence. Because Gandhi was such a prominent figure to his nation, the radical movements of him and his followers proved to be enough to free them of oppression. His powerful message of non-violence helped control his people and lead them as a united front to break down the British. Looking at just these two situations, I would say that the amount of violence incorporated in each was completely justified and necessary for a successful revolution. When looking at the French Revolution, I see the need for both radicalism and violence. This is because the people being oppressed in this situation were the Third Estate, who made up the bulk of the French population. These people were not being represented whatsoever in the French government and were treated unfairly by the small group of people that over powered them (the First and Second Estates). They were also starving to death. Therefore, radicalism and violence was absolutely necessary. Although, there is a certain tipping point at which the violence becomes too extreme, and I believe that tipping point in the French Revolution was with the execution of King Louis XVI. This was somewhat brutal and unnecessary to their cause. Overall, I feel that radicalism is always justified with a revolution and violence is usually necessary for it to be successful; needless to say, no violence in any situation is preferable and too much violence is uncalled for.
This question can be argued numerous ways. For one, it completely depends on the situation and the people involved in it. On the other hand, if you break it down to the mere principle of the fact, in order to have a revolution (and actually be successful) there does indeed need to involve radicalism. Without radicalism, a revolution can easily be ignored or put down. Although radicalism does not go hand in hand with violence, it usually leads to or is accompanied by violence. In many cases, radicalism is not enough to follow through with a successful revolution; this is when violence is necessary. For example, in the American Revolution, the rebels could not simply fight for their cause using radicalism because they were overpowered by the British. The only way to free themselves of British rule was to use violence and overtake their British oppressors. Once they had achieved this, violence was no longer necessary and they were able to prosper as a nation. On the other hand, in situations involving people like Mahatmas Gandhi, violence is not always necessary. Gandhi advocated non-violent movement in order to free his nation of British oppression. Even though he was advocating for non-violence, a substantial amount of violence broke out as a result of his movement. Although most of the violence came from the British side of the quarrel, there was still violence involved, which goes to show that with any revolution comes at least some amount of violence. Because Gandhi was such a prominent figure to his nation, the radical movements of him and his followers proved to be enough to free them of oppression. His powerful message of non-violence helped control his people and lead them as a united front to break down the British. Looking at just these two situations, I would say that the amount of violence incorporated in each was completely justified and necessary for a successful revolution. When looking at the French Revolution, I see the need for both radicalism and violence. This is because the people being oppressed in this situation were the Third Estate, who made up the bulk of the French population. These people were not being represented whatsoever in the French government and were treated unfairly by the small group of people that over powered them (the First and Second Estates). They were also starving to death. Therefore, radicalism and violence was absolutely necessary. Although, there is a certain tipping point at which the violence becomes too extreme, and I believe that tipping point in the French Revolution was with the execution of King Louis XVI. This was somewhat brutal and unnecessary to their cause. Overall, I feel that radicalism is always justified with a revolution and violence is usually necessary for it to be successful; needless to say, no violence in any situation is preferable and too much violence is uncalled for.
Revolutions are necessary to help a group of people get certain rights from a "parental power." In kost revolutions there is a need for violence and violence is the only option to help a group get their rights.Just as Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants." For example the Americans wanted freedom from Britain and the only way to ensure that freedom is through violence. Without violence the Americans would not have been free because Britain wanted their resources. Also in Violence was justifiable in the French Revolution because of the malnutrition and bankruptcy,and for these reasons the third estate had reason to be violent so they could get what was right. However Mahatma Gandhi used different methods to get his point across. Instead of being violent he allowed Britain to do as they may to show the horrors they were committing and eventually a pact was written that "kind of" compromised. To conclude the most effective way a revolution works towards the revolutionaries is through violence which is shown through many wars like the French and American Revolution.
Violence is a tool that in my opinion should only be used when it is absolutely necessary. Violence is not the key to every solution, not even to the majority of problems. Conflicts can be solved peacefully as seen through Gandhi’s beliefs and practices. Revolution is an extremely beneficial tool to solving a problem, but there are times when the protesting should be radical and times when it should be peaceful. If a government is corrupt, failing to represent the needs of its people, a radical revolution is justifiable. The duty of government is to represent its people to the best of its ability, providing them with the basic rights of man. Radical behavior can be used when a government continually fails to provide for its people. Violence should only be used in the most dire situations, because other forms of revolt are capable of bringing the same result. There is a difference between killing or injuring a few to make a point and killing thousands just for the sake of violence. Often times, radical leaders are the ones who impose violence upon others. It is instances such as Hitler’s reign that prove that violence is not entirely justifiable. Therefore, in my opinion, when justifying the use of radical behavior, it depends on the conflict and the outcome that those revolting seek.
I believe that there is no way that a revolution could occur without radical changes occurring. When a revolution is justified it is usually radical. By definition, radical is basically just a serious or large change from what is happening presently. As a result, most revolutions are radical in nature. Even the American Revolution, where prior to the actual revolution the civil governments were predominately democratic in nature, the Colonist’s overthrew the British Crown that while it did not do a lot of governing was still there, hanging over the Americans. In the French Revolution, the common people rose up and overthrew the upper landed classes to gain power. Whenever the form of government changes via a revolution, radical changes occur. However, during revolutions, violence is not always necessary. In the French Revolution, I believe that violence was not necessary. As the common people were 80% of the population, they could have taken over by sheer numbers and thrown the king and nobles into jail instead of executing them, like they later did to Napoleon. Gandhi was able to prevent violence through strikes and peaceful protests by wearing out the British until they were tired of holding onto the land. However, in the American Revolution, I believe violence was needed because the colonists had to gain the respect of the British, because they would not have given up such a profitable item easily. Violent revolution is not always justifiable, yet revolution is always radical. Depending on the circumstances determines whether or not the Revolution can be justified as violent.
I find that violent revolution is only justifiable in the most extreme circumstances. If a country's leaders are not only ignoring their people, but are abusing them and are causing suffering on a widespread and incredibly invasive and intensive level. However, this can only be used as a last resort. If people become every time their government annoys them, then the entire point of revolution is diminished and the people lower themselves to a point of feral bestiality, for only animals become violent every time they are displeased. In most instances, I would advocate calm and reasoned debate and discussion to solve problems; such prevents lives from being destroyed and leads to far less costly consequences. However, there are often leaders that refuse to listen to their people, no matter how desperate their pleas; in this case, in opposition to outright fighting, I would advocate making things as uncomfortable for the government, in a legal manner, as possible, so that they cannot retaliate but are still forced to listen. If their intolerance persists, and every other mean of compromise fails, and if the government becomes dangerously violent, then is violence justifiable. For then the government is like a naughty school child; they do not get the message of behavior until they are physically punished. And like some children won'y get the message until they suffer for their crimes, so to must a government be forced into behavior, but only if every other means fails; such as a child must only be corporally punished if every other form of discipline has failed. A human life is too important and precious to be thrown away over a matter that could be solved rationally.
A revolution is defined but the time, place, and how it occurs. Radical and revolution go together for you cannot have a revolution without radical’s ideas or ideas that are very different from the present norm. Violence and revolution although often come hand and hand do not need to always be together. It is possible to attain a revolution with violence not part of the equation it isn’t common but it can still happen. Revolutions are very necessary part of successful governments for they help to check the current system and also make the peoples voices be heard. Often the way in which the people’s voices are heard is with violence but their voices can also be heard by peaceful protests like in Gandhi’s case. Many times a violent revolution is justifiable especially when both sides of the “fight” feel strongly about their opinions. In the American Revolution for example the Americans could not have attained there freedom without a violent revolution because the British felt too strongly about holding the American colonies both for economic and political reasons and the Americans felt to strongly about having freedom from the British government. Radicalism is completely necessary and justified in revolutions while violence is often justified but should be avoided at all costs.
In the course of any revolution, lives are always lost in the name of it. Sometimes, these lives are the lives of tyrants and those who support it. Lives that are led full of corruption and injustice. However, more often than not, the lives lost during a violent revolution are the innocent people. Bystanders who did not choose to involve themselves in a revolution and who would certainly not want to die for it. This is the reason that a violent revolution is never justified. The ends do not justify the means. Some, like Thomas Jefferson, may reason that a few lives lost in the course of a revolution are insignificant. However, this is not true. No human life is worth more of less than any other and no revolutionary cause could possibly be worth so much. The people killed all have family and friends who will mourn their death. They will lose their lives, but not only that; their loved ones will also feel the pain of their passing. The pain is compounded. Human life is invaluable and you cannot possibly place a value on it. No cost is greater than the cost of human life. Because of this, violent revolution, which almost always necessarily has the collateral loss of innocent life, cannot justify it because the gain due to this revolution will never be able to exceed the cost of human life. Violent revolutions are not always necessary to resolve conflicts; radical measures taken by Gandhi and Martin Luther King were resolved peacefully. There is always another way to resolve a conflict; it does not always necessarily involve violence.
Both violent and peaceful revolutions are justifiable, but only in the right context. Seeing as I am an American, I will start with the American Revolution. Did a bloody war between Britain and the American Colonies really have to break out, probably not. What the Americans had really was not that bad, and from the beginning, the leaders of the congress did not want separation from Britain. But when the colonists tried for peace, and the British government ignored them, there was no choice left but to attack. Britain would not have stopped killing them until they surrendered and gave trying to gain independence. In this case, deadly force had to be used in order for the revolution to be successful.
In the case of the French Revolution, bloody killing was very much a part of it. They revolted against their own government, which did not have an ocean between it and its subjects. Brutal murders and assassinations where going to happen in a situation such as that. Although I do not agree with the reasons for the French Revolution, I do believe that they were justified in using force once it began, because if they didn’t, the military would have wiped them all out. There are always ways to go about a revolution without killing people, but in France’s case, they decided it would be better to kill people. If they had not used so much deadly force, the elite would have wiped any that opposed them out, until everyone was too scared to resist them. In the case of the French Revolution, violence was justifiable.
In India, a revolution took place without the use of force (at least for the Indians). It helped that the Indians already believed in peace based on their religion, and that Britain was so far away. It also helps that the revolution was later than the other two, meaning more press on the treatment of the Indian people. Another reason for the success of the Indian Revolution is the fact that Britain was entering WWI, and could now longer support the fight in India. This is, I believe, the most important reason as to why the Indian Revolution was successful. In most cases, for a revolution to be successful, violence is essential.
No two revolutionary movements are exactly the same. For this reason, declaring one to be necessary is a difficult and subjective process; the grounds, events, and outcome (especially the extent to which revolution is carried out) all must be weighed in order to make an educated determination. Generally, radical revolution is justifiable when the proper legal channels for change have failed, or do not exist in the first place. Before attempting to demand major change, the setting must be examined. In democratic societies, grievances must be made to the governing body, or put to a vote. Only after this is attempted, if the government refuses to listen to the needs and demands of its people, should revolution take place. The step of submitting complaints must necessarily be skipped in autocratic or dictatorial nations; in these cases, the proper legal channels may not exist, and attempts at revolution may be harshly subdued; these people must unite and create revolution for themselves. The use of violence is determined by the circumstances of the revolution and the characters involved. In some cases, such as Gandhi’s work in British-controlled India, revolution is achieved through nonviolent shows of opposition to policy. Lack of violence only served to underscore the strength of their will. Often, violence does not exist from the outset of revolution, but rather occurs as a side effect, or is made necessary by resistance from hanger-ons to the old ways. Examples of this include the American Revolution, where Americans attempted to convince the king to change his policies towards the colonies. War ensued when American militias, called arms in case of need, came into conflict with British soldiers sent to suppress the growing discontent of the American people. Violence is often the determining factor in deeming whether a revolution is justifiable. In some cases, violent revolution leads to widespread massacres and lootings, as well as the execution of the symbols of old policy. This was seen in the French Revolution, where the Parisian streets were littered with the countless dead, as Marie Antoinette and other nobles were sent to the guillotine. These killings far exceeded the scope needed to bring about change, and radically changed the end result (eventually leading to Napoleon’s taking control as Emperor of France). In this way, violence made revolution unjustified. In summation, radical and/or violent revolution can be justified, depending upon the circumstances surrounding them.
Personally, I believe that radical revolution and violent revolution are two completely different ways of going about revolution, but sometimes two and two become one. In my opinion I believe that radical revolution is always acceptable and justifiable when trying to get ones voice heard; violent revolution is only justified when there are no other options left once in a revolution. But when the situation calls for such acts, radical and violent revolution is most definitely justifiable. For example, during the French Revolution, the act of a radical and violent revolution was definitely justifiable, for the citizens had nothing left they could do. The government was heavily increasing taxes upon lower class citizens, giving them such a burden that they could not keep up with. The government began to take away the peoples own personal rights which should never be tampered with in the hands of government power. These people were being taken advantage of by their government, and the only way they could show how wrong the government was in their actions and have them truly listen was by violently acting against them. From a different perspective, radical, non-violent revolutions was been shown just as acceptable in society with the example of Gandhi. Gandhi believed in non-violent reform; the people listened to him because they truly connected and believed in him. Instead of taking weapons and hate against the government, he believed in showing his feelings through other forms of revolt, such as fasting. Gandhi fasted for days, upon weeks in order to change his country; and people did listen to him. In conclusion, I do believe that both radical and violent revolution are justifiable, but not for every revolution.
A revolution that reflects the ideals and beliefs of the vast majority of the people that are revolting is always justifiable. If human rights are being constrained by a government or by a select few that show a dominating nature over the majority then it is a duty and responsibility for the majority to revolt. It is the natural order of life for a change in power when many people are being repressed. Because of this natural order, a radical or “violent” rebellion is justifiable. Take for instance a pack of wolves. When the leader wolf fails to lead the pack with a dominating authority, or becomes too old and unable to rule, then it is natural for a younger member of the pack to force the old leader from the pack with a fight. Although humans can communicate with one another violence is still the fastest method of change that will effectively help the majority of the people at the expense of lives of a few. If the urgency for the rebellion is reduced, then it isn’t quite necessary for violence to erupt but if the need for a quick change is necessary then a peaceful rebellion is out of the question because it takes too long.
Only a select few of the human race have the ability to lead enough people to follow them and of these people even less have the strength to lead while being persecuted and while not retaliating. In my mind from my studies only Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi, and Dr. Martin Luther king have demonstrated this ability. Yet the process of these rebellions for change was long and still hasn’t been completely completed. Therefore, it was up to me and I was in a situation where my life was being controlled I would rather partake in a violent rebellion as opposed to a long drawn out rebellion that may not fully work to give back my human rights.
I believe that radical and violent revolutions are somewhat of a necessary evil in most cases. Revolutions are unfortunately, for the most part, inevitably violent. When the power was passed from the federalists to the democratic-republicans in the election of 1800 it was called the “bloodless revolution” because it was so unusual how peacefully power changed hands. It is a sad fact to state that the world has witnessed so few accounts of peaceful revolution, but in order to get real change accomplished violence is usually needed. Ghandi did not feel the same, and thought that what came into place through violence would not sustain. He is somewhat correct in this, but nothing stays in place forever no matter the means of achieving it. While determining the intensity of the violence necessary the environment in which the revolution is occurring comes into question- whether or not the current form of government is unrelenting and despotic, and also the degree of the injustices being inflicted by this power upon the people. If the government seems to be in the extreme and unwilling to compromise with the expressed needs of the people, then chances are that a violent revolution will be necessary. In the long run the benefits of the revolution and the lifting of such oppression that could very well stay in place for centuries and plague all those living under it on a daily basis- will outweigh the few lives lost.
A revolution that is radical is completely justifiable. A violent revolution, however, can be either justifiable only under certain circumstances. If you look at the American Revolution, a peaceful revolution would have not worked. The first obstacle was the distance. Because England did not directly rule the colonies, a peaceful revolution would have taken a very long time; when a protest is formed, it would’ve taken months for England to know. During the French Revolution, violence was also necessary because of how big the change needed to be. A complete renovation needed to happen, and non-violent protest, especially against an Absolutist government, wouldn’t have worked. The violent revolution was effective because the rebels during the French Revolution were from the Third Estate, which made up, in numbers, almost all of French society. Gandhi’s peaceful revolt was effective because of the sympathy they received for performing such a remarkable act. If Gandhi led the French Revolution, I would have doubts on its success. This is because of the social differences and the events that led to the revolutions. The French Revolution was also fueled by the fact that they had just helped the United States overthrow England in a violent revolution. This is not to say, however, that Gandhi’s revolution should not be rejected, because it saved many lives and still reformed a nation.
Thomas Jefferson’s statement in the letter should be, in my opinion, considered appropriate. If a weak, non-violent protest fails, thousands, if not millions of people will continue to live in a state of disgust, which is worse than the lives of a few of them. In my opinion, violent revolutions will grab people’s attention and point out that the people who want reform are serious and not just “simply” protesting non-violently. It took 17 more years after Gandhi’s famous Salt March for India to become independent, but if you look at the French and American Revolutions, they both took no more than a decade. This just shows how much more significant a violent revolution is.
I do believe that radical and violent revolution is justifiable at times, but it is not always the best course of action. For example, when the American colonies broke free from England their violent and radical revolution is what gave them their freedom. And in this case it was justified, because previous peaceful attempts to break free were unsuccessful. So, in this case, in order to break free from the oppressive British rule, a violent revolution was indeed necessary. But, this is just one case that is has been justifiable. In most cases, a violent revolution will not be a necessary action. For it cannot be justified if the overseeing government has not oppressed or abused the colony or country at hand. In most cases a political revolt can be just as effective as a violent revolt. If at all possible a revolt that causes blood shed should be avoided to spare the lives at hand, but if absolutely necessary a violent and radical revolution can be justified if the government has ignored needs and complaints of its people. Then the government should be taken down swiftly.
The question of whether radical and violent revolution is justifiable cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. The answer is completely circumstantial. Mahatma Gandhi proved that violence was not necessary in his revolution against the British. The British used violence against Gandhi and his followers. However they did not fight back. Their peaceful resistance caused the British oppression to stand out. In this particular situation, violence was not necessary for the revolution to be successful. However, that was just one revolution in one place at one time. Not every revolution can be as peaceful as Gandhi's. There are cases in which violence is absolutely necessary for the revolution to be successful. For example: during the French Revolution, the people were treated horribly by their ruler. They needed to show the government that they would not tolerate living under such oppression. This radical revolution required violence to be successful. Had they protested peacefully, they would most likely have been slaughtered and the revolution would have failed. During the American Revolution, the colonists wanted to be free of Britain's oppression. The British parliament was imposing strict taxes on the American people, and they did not like it. In order to break free of Britain and become a separate country the Americans had to use violence. In this case, the use of violence was required to force the British to give up their control of the colonies. Whether or not violent revolution is justified is circumstantial. There are times when violence is not only unnecessary, it will hinder the revolution. There are other times that a violent revolution is needed to free the people from an oppressor or tyrannical government. In every revolution lives will be lost. The French Revolution saw a high death toll. The question one must ask themselves is whether the loss of human life was worth it? Were the freedoms gained enough to justify the great number of people killed?
Radical and violent revolutions are very justifiable and very necessary in large amounts of situations. For example, in many situations the populations are being oppressed by an over controlling and over powerful government in which they have no say. In this situation, a non violent protest would have very little effect on the government because it simply would not care and would not change. However, I believe in this situation an radical revolution would cause change within the government and would in turn help the people. If a population needs radical change, a radical revolution is the answer in my opinion. If the radical revolution is well planned and organized, it will bring the needed change for the population.
If the founding fathers had decided that violent revolutions were not justifiable, we would still be a British colony today. If they decided to use nonviolent protests to display to the British they needed change the British would turn away and not care. A violent revolution was the only answer for the situation because it would be the most effective method to receive change. The most efficient and effective way to bring change to a population that needs it is a violent and radical revolution against the oppressive ruling body.
It really depends on how one looks at it. The way I look at it is that radical revolution is justifiable but in some cases violent revolution is necessary to achieve the freedom or change a nation or its people want. Thomas Jefferson says in his letter to William Smith that “from time to time” a revolution needs to take place to put the government back on the right path. It can start off with peaceful protest and if the government does not respond to those or does not take action because of them then violence comes into play. Whether a revolution is radical or violent really depends on the situation. For example: The American Revolution was a violent one. Americans wanted representation in Parliament but when the British refused to take their pleas into consideration did violence erupt. On the other hand, the Industrial Revolution was a radical one. The place where people worked were terrible and the way they were treated were terrifying. Jobs did not pay a lot. That is why a radical revolution took place and everything changed. Working standards improved. People were paid reasonably. Mahatma Gandhi did not believe in achieving freedom through violence. He was driven by religion and the people he had met through his life. That is what affected him the most. He used non-violence to get his message across to the British and it was effective. He did not want to see mass murdering but wanted to achieve the needs of his people peacefully. He proved it to the world that violence was not needed to achieve independence. Non-violent revolution requires patience because it takes time for it to be effective. The times when the American Revolution and the Gandhi’s Non-Violent Movement took place were different. During the American Revolution, the British were more powerful and could refuse or say no to the American. During Gandhi’s Non-Violent Movement, the British’s power was declining because of World War II and they had no choice but to give in. They did not have the ability to fight if this non-violent movement turned into a war. It really depends on how one looks at it. Both, radical and violent revolutions are justifiable but in today’s world I would say that leaders should lead revolutions more peacefully such as Gandhi did because we are more civilized.
Radical revolution and even violent revolution is justifiable in some instances. A perfect government is an oxymoron. Government will always contain flaws and leave people unsatisfied. However, if there is a government that is unbearable to the masses and does nothing for the people, then it is necessary for the government to change or be changed. Both the governments during the French and Indian revolutions fell under this category. In the case of the French revolution, the 3rd estate was the majority of the people. However it had the least say in government. The masses plagued by bad economy, and influenced by wars, urbanization, and enlightenment thinking were unhappy. As a result they rebelled. This radical change was justified by the dissatisfaction of the 3rd estate and the fact that the government ignored this dissatisfaction. The revolution that took place in India was likewise justified. The rule of India by Britain was solely for profit. While the British grew rich, they held the Indians back by taking from them without giving them a chance to fight back. The Indians, who had no representation in the government that ruled them were justified in their rebellion.
As for violent radical change, the justification also depends on the situation. Violent revolution is in some ways easier than a peaceful revolution. In some cases the tools required for a peaceful revolution are not available. India was blessed with a strong leader who united the country for a common cause. Meanwhile, the French did not have a leader as strong. Also in the case of India most of the country was united for a common cause. In the case of the French, it was a country divided. Where the Indians sought to shake off the British and establish their own government, the French sought to overthrow a government in place for centuries and completely change it. Such radical changes like the French’s require violent revolution. Governments respond to violence and numbers. The Indians had vast numbers and a strong leader and could make the British listen. Whereas the French had to rely on violence to make their government listen.
It really depends on how one looks at it. The way I look at it is that radical revolution is justifiable but in some cases violent revolution is necessary to achieve the freedom or change a nation or its people want. Thomas Jefferson says in his letter to William Smith that “from time to time” a revolution needs to take place to put the government back on the right path. It can start off with peaceful protest and if the government does not respond to those or does not take action because of them then violence comes into play. Whether a revolution is radical or violent really depends on the situation. For example: The American Revolution was a violent one. Americans wanted representation in Parliament but when the British refused to take their pleas into consideration did violence erupt. On the other hand, the Industrial Revolution was a radical one. The place where people worked were terrible and the way they were treated were terrifying. Jobs did not pay a lot. That is why a radical revolution took place and everything changed. Working standards improved. People were paid reasonably. Mahatma Gandhi did not believe in achieving freedom through violence. He was driven by religion and the people he had met through his life. That is what affected him the most. He used non-violence to get his message across to the British and it was effective. He did not want to see mass murdering but wanted to achieve the needs of his people peacefully. He proved it to the world that violence was not needed to achieve independence. Non-violent revolution requires patience because it takes time for it to be effective. The times when the American Revolution and the Gandhi’s Non-Violent Movement took place were different. During the American Revolution, the British were more powerful and could refuse or say no to the American. During Gandhi’s Non-Violent Movement, the British’s power was declining because of World War II and they had no choice but to give in. They did not have the ability to fight if this non-violent movement turned into a war. It really depends on how one looks at it. Both, radical and violent revolutions are justifiable but in today’s world I would say that leaders should lead revolutions more peacefully such as Gandhi did because we are more civilized.
The justification of radical, violent revolution is justified based upon the circumstances of the presented situation. The driving force behind any revolution is typically to confront actions done by a ruling body that are deemed unjust or undesirable by revolutionaries and to correct, change, or remove people or policies in order to make the system conform with their ideals (what they view as just). Pertaining to the prosperity of a nation, it must maintain a level of stability, of which the relationship of the public to ruling body and the obedience of the common person are vital components. Since revolutions often serve as a correction mechanism in governing systems, violent means have the potential to be deemed just. Take for example the American Revolution. The citizens of the original thirteen colonies faced injustice in the form of taxation, trade restriction, and a lack of representation in government. Since boycotts and letters were unsuccessful in correcting the injustice, the Americans turned to violence in the form of the the American Revolutionary War in order to break free from opression and to create the nation that we live in today. However, there are situations in which violent revolutions are not justified, as exemplified by the French revolution. Throughout the course of this event, the military was the foremost tool in carrying out revolutionary ideals, evident in the revolts of the commoners, the raising of a massive army by the French revolutionary government, and the Reign of Terror. The revolutionaries resorted to violence without much peaceful negotiation. Many perished and the counrty ended up under the supreme rule of Napoleon, the kind of government they were trying to abolish. For these reasons the violence was not justified. In situations like these, violence may not be the most effective course of action, as signified by Mahatma Gandhi and the independence of India. Through his peaceful protest, he not only exposed the opression of the British on the Indian people, but also saved many from death. In the simplicity, violence is justified only when peaceful measures fail to accomplish the desired results.
Whether or not radical and violent revolution is justifiable is similar to controversial modern-day issues such as freedom of speech, gun control, and abortion. The ultimate question is: do the benefits justify the cost? In the case of a bloody revolution, do the changes caused by the revolution justify the cost of lives and property? Some people such as Edmund Burke believe that such a revolution is not justified because the changes will have a negative impact on society. He believes that the new regime instated by the revolution will be similar if not worse than its predecessor. There are countless examples of this type of revolution, such as the Bolshevik revolution. Others such as Mahatma Gandhi argue against bloody revolutions based on moral factors. He believes that no revolutions should be justified with violence. Unlike Burke and Gandhi, I believe that bloody revolutions are justified when the majority of a nation's population decides to rebel. The role of government is to protect the people's liberties. If the government fails to do this, then the people have the right to overthrow the government. In the long run, the loss of lives and property would be for the greater good of the people. If a majority of the people were discontent with the new government, then they could also overthrow it. As a result, the people keep the power of government in check. Revolutions are necessary as part of the contract between the people and their rulers.
I believe that radical and violent revolutions are easily justifiable. Many rulers over time have needed to be deposed, and diplomacy rarely works. For the to be negotiations there needs to be to sides willing to negotiate. If the revolution is to take a tyrant from power, which is normally the case, then chances are the tyrant won't want to talk about it. The tyrant will more than likely have psychological problems if he is murdering his peasants or starving them or whatever it is he's doing that is bad enough to stir a revolution. I am also a firm believer in capitol punishment so he deserves death due to his actions. A violent revolution also destroys the evil it was up against, permanently purging it from the land so it can't return. A diplomatic solution leaves the tyrant able to regroup and continue to be a bur in the side of decent humans. Therefore a violent revolution is a justifiable, and most of the time a better, solution.
The answer to this question is dependent on your own personal beliefs. It is my belief that there are situations where violence can not be avoided. For example, if your homeland is invaded by another country, then you would have to defend yourself just for survival, if nothing else. Thus, there are bound to be situations where a violent revolution is necessary.
Additionally, sometimes the views of the revolutionaries will be radical, in reaction to a government which has become politically imbalanced, unpopular and/or tyrannical.
Contemporary examples such as the Russian Revolution and the Iranian Revolution echo this exactly. Although neither of these revolutions led to governments which we would consider to be a step in the right direction, they were justified because the societies had both reached breaking points in the number of perceived injustices that their governments could give them. Therefore, when the people decided that they would revolt, it became violent, as people slowly became increasingly wary of their government in the months leading up to the revolution. In Iran, the move towards an increasingly liberal society, enforced by law, did not settle well with the more conservative population. Again, the society reached a breaking point of how far left the country could go. When the revolution occurred, the views echoed by the leaders were radically towards the right and the civilian response was violent.
In history it seems that violent and radical revolutions did not lead to better governments and were thus not justifiable.
This is untrue. The reaction was justifiable. The actual problem lies in the fact that the post-Revolutionary leaders did not create a government that was much better than the preceding one. If you consider the political spectrum to be a circle rather than a line, this would mean that both the old and new governments were so extreme that they were almost the same.
A successful example of a violent and radical revolution is our own, the American Revolution. Ours was certainly violent and our complete rejection of colonial rule was very radical at a time when colonies just accepted the rule of a mother nation.
Mr. Kirby, I posted in the previous blog post. Don't know if you saw my email or not. I did it a couple days ago, as you can tell by the timestamp of the response.
I do not believe that a radical and violent revolution can be justifiable. The Princeton University’s WordNet defines a revolution as “the overthrow of a government by those who are governed.” A revolution ought to be for the better of the people. However, if violence is incorporated into a revolution, then the people are not benefitting. Using force to take down oppressive governments hurts both the government and the rebellious factions; a peaceful revolution is the best solution.
During the “Reign of Terror” in the French Revolution, about fifty thousand people were executed by guillotines (Spielvogel 538). That number included royalists, revolutionaries, and even peasants. Therefore, the French Revolution’s violence snatched away those lives and failed to deliver a better government to them. In addition, the victims of the guillotine had families and friends. During just the “Reign of Terror,” The French Revolution brought heartache to at least fifty thousand mothers, fathers, spouses, siblings, children, and friends. Although a revolution is supposed to improve the situation of its people, violent revolutions just bring pain and more resentment.
On the other hand, peaceful revolutions, such as Gandhi’s movement in India, bridge gaps between different people and ease pain and resentment. Gandhi pioneered a concept called satyagraha, which promoted nonviolent civil disobedience. He first practiced it in South Africa and achieved positive results. He then implemented his method in India, and, again, Gandhi was successful in most of his ambitions. Revolutions without violence succeed because they are commendable in making radical changes without resorting to physical harm. Outsiders feel more empathy for nonviolent rebels, and they are more likely to offer help. Therefore, it is not necessary to implement violence in revolutions; they will be just as triumphant, if not more so, without being stained with the blood of countrymen.
Violent revolutions cannot be justified. They negate the purpose of a revolution by causing pain to the very citizens they are supposedly helping. Furthermore, peaceful revolutions can bring about radical reform as well. There is no point to killing people in order to topple the government in hopes of creating a better one.
Personally, I think to make a significant change you do not have to result to violent means. However, our ancestors did and that is why today I get to live in America as the country it is today. This is a very complex question that has various sides in which you can support. I think a radical revolution is acceptable; people should express their concerns and voice their opinions as much as they want in the hope to make a change and a difference. BUT I do not think it should have to be violent. Only in the means to physically protect yourself, do I think violence is acceptable. For Gandhi is right, if a victory is obtained through violence then it is not a full victory. Both sides are not content and only more issues will arise. Violence does not lead to stability and a guarantee of not losing your rights once more. Thomas Jefferson is right; most countries have formed from a revolution or have had at least one revolution since its existence. But I do not agree with him because every single life in this world should be honored, so whether it is one, five, hundred, thousand lives lost in a century or two they are significant. Violence should not be a natural manure and way to change the system. Rather, debate and compromise is how changes should be made. Yet, in the end the location, the leaders, the people, the opposing force, and what is being fought for determines how a revolution will play out. The main thing I am trying to stress is that I think before we act violently, we should act rationally and try to compromise and only if necessary should we result to violence. For violence creates more issues than it fixes.
History has shown that blood needs to be spilled during a revolution. Though history has indeed produced a few revolutions in which violence did not incur, most revolutions, such as the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and even the revolution for India's freedom, were bloodstained. A violent revolution proves to be a double-edged sword. If the radicals prove to be victorious, the lives of others have been tossed aside for that victory. I believe that violence is almost inevitable if a revolution is to occur, and that the ends indeed justify the means. The American Revolution was indeed a bloody revolution. Thousands of American men were killed in the fight for freedom. Yet, because such people gave up their lives for the cause of freedom, America is the country it is now. Though people died, America was able to build a strong and powerful country that their posterity could prosper in. The French Revolution was hideously bloody. Yet the people believed that they were fighting for the right reasons, and therefore, the goal achieved was worth the blood that was spilled in the long run. Even in India, more than a century later, bloodshed was not completely avoided. Although Ghandi promoted civil disobedience, violence was not completely avoided. And perhaps the revolution in India for independence from England would have been even more successful if violence did ensue. Thus, I believe that violent revolutions are justified.
Radical Revolutions only occur when change is seen as something essential to a great number of the minority of a state. If the situation at hand was not horrible, people would not see the need to revolt for a big and rapid change, instead they would opt to fix the government through legislation or other longer means. So if a revolution occurs in order to overthrow a government, it must mean that the people want for some radical change in the society and how things are run. The French revolution is s good example of this. The 3rd estate wrote out the Tennis court treaty in rebellion of the government because at that time, they were out of other options. The French government had become so exclusive that only the highest landowning classes were represented in parliament. So amount of collaboration or coercing was going to get them what they wanted. Therefore, their call for a radical change in the government was perfectly justifiable. The political structure was corrupted to the point where a small change would not have made a difference - it would eventually fall back to the same problem. Something big had to be done. And we always hear that violence is never the solution, however as seen in history, violence seems to play a key role in getting out the urgent messages. As morally wrong as it seems, violence can be justified in most cases. If the members of the 3rd house in France had not attempted to steal artillery and get involved in a battle that lead death on both sides, their cause may have been comepletely ignored. The monarchy could have easily pushed them aside as an umimportant, fickle cause. The Americans were not paid real attention to until some violence ensued (Boston Tea Party) where the monarchs were finally notified of the extent of their problems. Even in Gandhi's casemin India, his act of civil disobedience and nonviolence would not be seen by the world as such a big deal if their opponents had not retaliated with such violence such as massacres and shootings at the innocent revolters. History shows that revolutions never gain attention nor success unless they show the power and extent they are willing to go through with it. Violence is necessary in many but not all cases for a revolution to occur. (Coup of William and Mary in England is an example of a nonviolent one)
Is it better to be happy, or alive?
This response is written considering there to be no correct answer to the above question- that is, any 'answer' is a matter of highly varied personal opinion.
Radical and violent revolution, by technicality, can always be 'justified.' In truth, justification simply requires one participating party to outline its reasons and motives, weigh the consequences, and decide that what they want is worth the repercussions. Whether or not the revolution on a whole is moral or for the greater public interest is sadly left out of this definition.
Take a step back, however, and justification takes an interesting turn. What are morals, if not the automatic justification of any actions that adhere to a certain set of strictures? Yet, while justification seems to be rooted in logic, morals are an emotional and philosophical matter.
From there, it can be drawn that justification as well is drawn from the beliefs and feelings of the people who lay judgement. What one person perceives as 'better' may, to another, appear to be 'worse.'
Now applied to a revolution, multiple schools of thought arise. The effective 'costs' of a revolution are a temporary lack of stability, the loss of lives, and the loss of the time of peace for those touched by the war. Economic changes and other second-order differences may also occur. The 'rewards' of a revolution are the shift in power, and (hopefully) the betterment of the masses. Note here that, in the case of a tyrannical revolution in which power is seized, it is possible that the revolution is actually a detriment to the masses.
To many, bloody revolutions are considered drastic measures only to be taken if dire consequences exist for maintaining the status quo. As such, under most ordinary circumstances, they are not justified. A popular accepted trade-off is 'more lives saved than lost.'
On the other hand, passive oppression is unlikely to take any lives. Corruption, avarice, and greed can disrupt justice, but the only likely deaths will be the result of starvations.
Carefully structured economic systems, such as ideal communism, can actually open medical care to more people- effectively saving lives.
Where does happiness enter the equation? It is listed in our Declaration of Independence includes it as a basic and inalienable right of all human beings. As such, happiness can also be the goal of a revolution.
This, however, leads the argument back to the Unanswerable Question: are the deaths of patriots, and innocents, worth making people 'happy?' Humans have only a single life to live on earth, so to many the way they spend it matters far more than the way they end it. A young death and the killing of others may be worthwhile costs.
The descriptor 'radical' also opens up a whole range of interesting possibilities. Admittedly we are constantly reminded that radicals are not necessarily violent or crazy. However, a radical and bloody revolution could be wrought at the hands of a maniac, perhaps searching for their own version of idealism or dispensing their customized version of justice. In such a case, only followers would justify the revolution.
In conclusion, revolutions are always 'justified.' The important consideration to be made is what role happiness and morals play in the revolution, and whether enough people consider those ends important enough to justify the means.
Radical revolution may be necessary in order to improve society, but doing so by violent means is drastic and should only be used when near desperation. In the example history gives us of the French Revolution, the people's bloody actions towards change led to more chaos and a poorly disguised absolutist emperor. Positive and lasting change can be reached without murdering thousands of people, as in the case of Gandhi. He was able to display his opinions and gain changes in his country through nonviolent protests and fasting, rather than leading an angry mob through the streets ready to behead those in power. He believed the killing of innocents is not justifiable in any situation, even if it benefits the end goal. I agree with this opinion, because all lives are priceless and by that away society becomes barbaric and hypocritical.
The only way violent revolutions could be considered justifiable is when government organizations fail to meet the people's needs deliberately and with improper intent. Only then can such obvious measures of showing dissatisfaction be used, and sparingly.
It's Monday morning. If you haven't posted, you are late!
A radical and violent revolution is almost never justified. The revolution can only be as violent as the injustices placed against the people and only if these injustices benefit a minority of people. For example rationing in a time of war benefits the troops and thus the entire nation so is not an injustice. Also a revolution should not be to establish a new system of government. Rather it should be used as a tool to weed out the corruption in the system and then be replaced by new, wholesome individuals. Revolutions should only be used as a last resort method because for the maximum amount of efficiency a nation must be united behind a single strong leader. Thomas Hobbes was correct in the Leviathan when he stated the need for a strong, absolutist government. However he also called for a total lack of revolutions. However I believe that a revolution is sometimes needed, even if those times are rare. Even in the best of governments corruption will surface and the corrupt will exploit the powers that they are given. This is the only scenario where revolution might be permissible.
I believe violence is justified in a revolution in some circumstances. For instance in the French revolution, while I believe it should have been resolved in a more diplomatic manner, I think violence was justified, based upon the lack of communication. Now the leaders of our country can access and communicate with any other political leader or representative in many different ways. But back then they didn’t have all those different technological outlets and both sides had to speak with their actions, which obviously led to violence. When people disagree they can resolve their conflict by agreeing to disagree. In war and social upheaval, however, you can’t just make problems disappear without radical change, and so violence can be justified in these situations. In most cases though, I believe it should only be the very last alternative. In these days if its impossible for disagreeing leaders to sit down and discuss and compromise on serious problems their respective nations are dealing with, then they shouldn’t be allowed to govern an entire body of people. Because they should be thinking about their countrymen and how to spare as many lives as possible, which would be by not entering a bloody war. So in modern times violence is definitely not justifiable.
I believe violence is justified in a revolution in some circumstances. For instance in the French revolution, while I believe it should have been resolved in a more diplomatic manner, I think violence was justified, based upon the lack of communication. Now the leaders of our country can access and communicate with any other political leader or representative in many different ways. But back then they didn’t have all those different technological outlets and both sides had to speak with their actions, which obviously led to violence. When people disagree they can resolve their conflict by agreeing to disagree. In war and social upheaval, however, you can’t just make problems disappear without radical change, and so violence can be justified in these situations. In most cases though, I believe it should only be the very last alternative. In these days if its impossible for disagreeing leaders to sit down and discuss and compromise on serious problems their respective nations are dealing with, then they shouldn’t be allowed to govern an entire body of people. Because they should be thinking about their countrymen and how to spare as many lives as possible, which would be by not entering a bloody war. So in modern times violence is definitely not justifiable.
Post a Comment