It’s funny to me how most of your examples involved the USSR peacefully ceding power. If you’re up against someone with a conscience, sure.
I don’t deny that peaceful movements can be effective (especially when backed with an implicit threat of force). I do deny that they are consistently effective, as proven by Mossadegh and countless similar stories around the world. From The Jakarta Method:
This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: Who was right?
In Guatemala, was it Arbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?
Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the d’etente between the Soviets and Washington.
Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported – what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.
That group was annihilated.
Peaceful movements that challenge Western economic interests in regions remote enough for the Western public to not care get massacred. Meanwhile, violent revolutions have provided massive increases in quality of life in many countries, including China, Vietnam, and Cuba. If you want to argue that peaceful methods are more likely to be successful within the imperial core that’s one thing, but if you want to lay it down as though it’s some universal law that violence never works, I’m going to call that out as absurd.
I’m sorry, are you trying to tell me that the government system that oversaw the Holomodor was one with a conscience? As someone who lives in a former Soviet satellite state, I can ensure you they didn’t do this out of the kindness of their hearts, they did it because they collapsed under their own incompetence. And if Cuba is the standard you have for quality of life, I feel sorry for you.
they did it because they collapsed under their own incompetence.
Huh, and here I thought they did it because peaceful protests were just so darn effective.
And if Cuba is the standard you have for quality of life, I feel sorry for you.
First off, Cuba’s quality of life is greatly impacted by the US embargo. Secondly, even with the embargo Cuba’s quality of life greatly improved compared to what it had before. If the standard you have for quality of life is the Batista gangster state, I feel sorry for you.
Funny how you chauvanists always try to compare the quality of life in former colonies to that of the imperial core as if it’s some kind of point in your favor. If you do an actually fair comparison by looking at what came before, Castro was a massive improvement over Batista, the PRC was a massive improvement over the ROC, and the USSR was a massive improvement over the tsar.
I’m comparing what our lives are here under democratic rule here in my country to what they were under the single party communist system. And we have no desire to go back. The communists will never win another election here, and for good reason. If you have to force your system of government on the population at gunpoint, it’s not anything to be proud of.
And again, if you want to argue that’s true in certain situations, then knock yourself out. Don’t try to propose it as some universal law or dismiss objective quality of life improvements in other countries.
Just so long as you arbitrarily exclude Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Chile, and the many, many other cases where the CIA overthrew peaceful, democratically elected leaders who went against their economic interests, while also blaming countries for things outside of their control, and refusing to consider changes in quality of life and insist that every former colony be compared to the nations that stole/are stealing their wealth and resources.
I think you are making my point for me. Violent revolutions are often if not usually hijacked and perverted by violent parties to achieve their own ends, which almost never line up with the needs of the actual citizens of the territory.
It’s funny to me how most of your examples involved the USSR peacefully ceding power. If you’re up against someone with a conscience, sure.
I don’t deny that peaceful movements can be effective (especially when backed with an implicit threat of force). I do deny that they are consistently effective, as proven by Mossadegh and countless similar stories around the world. From The Jakarta Method:
Peaceful movements that challenge Western economic interests in regions remote enough for the Western public to not care get massacred. Meanwhile, violent revolutions have provided massive increases in quality of life in many countries, including China, Vietnam, and Cuba. If you want to argue that peaceful methods are more likely to be successful within the imperial core that’s one thing, but if you want to lay it down as though it’s some universal law that violence never works, I’m going to call that out as absurd.
I’m sorry, are you trying to tell me that the government system that oversaw the Holomodor was one with a conscience? As someone who lives in a former Soviet satellite state, I can ensure you they didn’t do this out of the kindness of their hearts, they did it because they collapsed under their own incompetence. And if Cuba is the standard you have for quality of life, I feel sorry for you.
Huh, and here I thought they did it because peaceful protests were just so darn effective.
First off, Cuba’s quality of life is greatly impacted by the US embargo. Secondly, even with the embargo Cuba’s quality of life greatly improved compared to what it had before. If the standard you have for quality of life is the Batista gangster state, I feel sorry for you.
Funny how you chauvanists always try to compare the quality of life in former colonies to that of the imperial core as if it’s some kind of point in your favor. If you do an actually fair comparison by looking at what came before, Castro was a massive improvement over Batista, the PRC was a massive improvement over the ROC, and the USSR was a massive improvement over the tsar.
I’m comparing what our lives are here under democratic rule here in my country to what they were under the single party communist system. And we have no desire to go back. The communists will never win another election here, and for good reason. If you have to force your system of government on the population at gunpoint, it’s not anything to be proud of.
And again, if you want to argue that’s true in certain situations, then knock yourself out. Don’t try to propose it as some universal law or dismiss objective quality of life improvements in other countries.
I’m only arguing based on the real world examples presented on each side of the argument to date.
Just so long as you arbitrarily exclude Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Chile, and the many, many other cases where the CIA overthrew peaceful, democratically elected leaders who went against their economic interests, while also blaming countries for things outside of their control, and refusing to consider changes in quality of life and insist that every former colony be compared to the nations that stole/are stealing their wealth and resources.
I think you are making my point for me. Violent revolutions are often if not usually hijacked and perverted by violent parties to achieve their own ends, which almost never line up with the needs of the actual citizens of the territory.
I have no idea how showing a bunch of peaceful movements that got slaughtered “makes your point for you.”