Non-violence

[Impenitent]

modern Iran would simply apply its "manifest destiny" belief and eliminate the infidels...

-Imp

[Walker]

England did not do that in response to non-violence.

The Iranian Regime, would.
That’s the difference.

(Of course, there are other differences, but less significant to the topic of non-violence, like the ancient history of Persia.)

[MikeNovack]

I would suggest that it isn't so simple, the questions of when non-violence will work (and when not*) and against whom. I think actual cases where non-violence tactics were effective (even against unlikely opponents, well armed and vicious) need to be examined. This might give us ideas of requirements for success.

For example "Rosenstrasse". You might at first think no non-violent action could work against the Nazi regime. But this protest action did. Why?What were the special conditions in play.



* sorry advocates on non-violence, but I do NOT believe always applicable.

[Gary Childress]

I would suggest that it isn't so simple, the questions of when non-violence will work (and when not*) and against whom. I think actual cases where non-violence tactics were effective (even against unlikely opponents, well armed and vicious) need to be examined. This might give us ideas of requirements for success.

For example "Rosenstrasse". You might at first think no non-violent action could work against the Nazi regime. But this protest action did. Why?What were the special conditions in play.



* sorry advocates on non-violence, but I do NOT believe always applicable.

I doubt anyone, even after studying the cases, can come up with a foolproof formula for when non-violence will work or not work. It's like predicting the weather or looking for foolproof (and non-insider) tips on predicting the stock market. Personally, I think cases where non-violence has worked to solve issues are examples of the best that can happen in this world and the best hope we have. I think, as a moral imperative, all efforts should start with non-violence, and violence should only be used as a very last resort, at best. And by "last resort," I mean they fired first and wouldn't stop after considerable non-violent protest. This should apply especially to powerful countries that are relatively safe from being bullied by others. There's no legitimate excuse for a powerful country to initiate terror in order to get what it wants from another country. And it is foolish for weaker countries to do so either.

[MikeNovack]

That doesn't follow. Just because non-violence would not work (in some situatipon) does not mean that viuolence wpould work any better.

And I disagree that looking at individual cases, especially ones where it would at first glance seem impossible for non-violence to work (but it did) that we might discover some underlying principles.

So I'll repeat, why did "Rosenstrasse" work? (what do you think restrained the Nazi regime from responding with force/violence the way they usually did?)

[puto]

The term complement of, "Violence" is, "Non-violence." The complement is everything outside of the class.

[Walker]

* sorry advocates on non-violence, but I do NOT believe always applicable.

Especially when Iran is involved.

[MikeNovack]

Especially when Iran is involved.

But Walker, wouldn't you have said the same about Nazi Germany? That's what makes "Rosenstrasse" so interesting.

[Gary Childress]

That doesn't follow. Just because non-violence would not work (in some situatipon) does not mean that viuolence wpould work any better.

And I disagree that looking at individual cases, especially ones where it would at first glance seem impossible for non-violence to work (but it did) that we might discover some underlying principles.

So I'll repeat, why did "Rosenstrasse" work? (what do you think restrained the Nazi regime from responding with force/violence the way they usually did?)

My suspicion is that authentic commitment to whatever is being advocated is necessary. That means that a protest needs to be led and reined in by people who understand the cause and believe in it. And for everyone (or most people) to truly believe in a cause, it has to be a noble one. It has to be one that is worthy of believing in. Otherwise, some people will simply horse around and make a mockery of the cause, just like vandals and looters did to protests that got out of hand during the Black Lives Matter heyday and turned into destruction fests. Rosenstrasse was a non-violent protest organized by people who actually believed in what they were doing and had a stake in it. The Nazis were brutal at times, but they weren't stupid when it came to their own population, from which they were drawing their own support. They knew that brutally quelling the Rosenstrasse protest would likely lead to more civil unrest among more and more people who were otherwise supporting them up to that point. It's very easy math. Even Nazis know it.

[Lacewing]

Considered both as a tactic and a moral position. Some of the questions that might be discussed here:
1) Are there any societies/cultures where this is fundamental? Are such societies/cultures possible ? (viable against other societies/cultures? Is it possible that we humans just aren't this sort of critter?

I think it's possible and I would like to live there. It depends on the shared philosophy of the collective. If you view others as 'another yourself', it removes a lot of the venom one can feel towards 'others'. Currently, and in large part, it does not seem that we humans are evolved enough to co-exist with differences peacefully. Our egos want to be on 'the right side'... which perpetuates the notion that there's 'a wrong side' to war against.

But there are examples of more peaceful and accepting mind-sets across the human spectrum... for all kinds of reasons. For me, there are two reasons that come to mind... love and energy. Love feels better and understands more. Energetically, it's not efficient or intelligent to invest in all the WASTE of violence.

In general, I'd rather move toward something than away from something.

2) As a tactic, is it always viable? Is it sometimes viable even against an unlikely opponent?

Even animals 'act out' to make a point or express their nature. If a human is being really stupid or destructive, is it okay to 'act out' to say, "f*** you, that's stupid and it's a disservice to all of us." Can we have a sense of humor while we do it? Maybe at our current stage of evolution, 'acting out' is one of the ways we wake each other up. And it can be fun.

I would prefer to live in a peaceful and enlightened society where there's always understanding over violence... but I'm here, instead, with my own colorful lack of evolvement, so I'm making the best of it and loving as much as possible despite my profanities.