I shall, in this post, put forward a radical proposition for the critique of my peers. Specifically, that a violent revolution is both a morally justified cause, and a necessity for the continued viability of the United States.
Why would a violent revolution ever be a morally justified cause? This is simple: there are times when government gets to the point that it is so corrupt, and the corruption is so ingrained into the system, that the only way to repair the damage is to dissolve the current government by means of force. There is a long history of violent rebellions against corrupt governments. Indeed, this very nation is the product of a violent rebellion. Revolution has long been the only choice left to people so oppressed by their governments that only by arms could the people seek to rectify the various injustices hefted upon them by their own government.
And what of the idea of revolution being our only choice? Like in Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and countless others, corruption has become ingrained into the very political system. Politics have become less about what is beneficial to the people and more about creating cults of personality around leaders, and a competition between liberals and conservatives to paint each other as the source of all the people's ills, even as politicians of both sides play the system and deny the people basic rights, such as health care, a decent living wage, and access to education, rights that other industrialized democracies (notably in Western and Northern Europe) recognized decades ago.
The system, as it currently exists, forces corruption. There is no way to get anywhere in the system without playing by their rules. It silences and marginalizes all opposition as "unpatriotic," "unAmerican." It has divided this country, and seeks to suck its very lifeblood out of the masses of people, for the benefit of the super-rich. It is unheeding of the will of the people, and must therefore be dissolved and replaced with a government that is responsive to the needs of the people, and works for the benefit of the governed, NOT the governors.
To end with a question: Is this idea, the idea of a violent revolution, morally justifiable? Or is it the choice of disillusioned and possibly delusional radicals, an option best left aside and never touched?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This reminds me of The Rebel, by Albert Camus
ReplyDeleteI agree that in certain circumstances, violent revolution can be considered morally justified. This action is only justified, however, once all peaceable avenues of reform have been explored and exhausted. Given that premise, I do not believe that violent revolution in the United States is currently justifiable; I do not believe that it is necessary either.
ReplyDeleteIf Americans believe that their representitives in Congress and the White House are not governing properly, then those representatives will most likely be voted out. Considering that midterm elections are coming up, I don't think that we have to break out the torches and pitchforks quite yet.
You also made the claim that corruption has been ingrained into the U.S. government; that the system itself forces corruption. You likened the level of U.S. government corruption to that of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the British empire, and the Soviet Union, and subsequently advocated for the dissolution of our government because of that corruption. I do not agree that the U.S. government faces levels of corruption comparable to those examples, but they do present an interesting comparison nonetheless. I find it interesting that with the exception of the British Empire (although an argument can be made) those governments all replaced former regimes through violent means. They might serve as an example of how revolution often produces a worse government than the one it replaced.
Actually, the interesting thing to note about Nazi Germany is that it was not, in fact, installed by a violent revolution. The Nazi party was voted in to the German Parliament, and Hitler had himself appointed chancellor. He was an elected leader who, in a move chillingly reminiscent of the Bush Administration, began to consolidate power, suspend civil rights, and eventually suspend the constitution and install the violent police state that eventually went on to ravage Europe. While admittedly Bush did not go as far as Hitler, he has laid the groundwork through which some future president could easily take power in a similar fashion.
ReplyDeleteAs for voting out representatives in Congress... it is a sad fact that many Congressmen, regardless of their performance, are re-elected cycle after cycle. A number of Representatives even run unopposed (in the last cycle, 5 of the 10 Representatives in Massachusetts had no opposition). It can be quite difficult to vote out poor performing Representatives when there is no second choice. Though even if the choice existed, it often comes down to either a Republican, who will refuse to compromise with the Democrats in ideaological grounds or, when they are in the majority, procede to pass a number of bills that hurt the nation, or a Democrat, who, as we have seen now, cannot even pass vital legislation with significant majorities in both houses of Congress, and, with the insistence of the president, seek to pass legislation with bipartisan support that is obviously never going to materialize. The end result is that Congress is crippled and unable to do anything if the Democrats are in power, or works tirelessly to support big business at the expense of the middle and lower class if the Republicans are in power. This, to me, speaks of a serious disease in American politics that MUST be cured, and I hold little hope of the system working itself out.
I think that the example of Nazi Germany had to do with how the Nazi regime was defeated, not installed. It was indeed defeated through violent means, namely, war. In that case, I think it was justified to use violence in order to defeat the Nazis, because of their inhumane militarism. I believe that the case of the United States, however, is different, or at least deserves more clarification. Hypothetically, the government makes decisions based on its citizens wishes, which very often conflict with each other. Therefore, if we want to fight someone in order to accomplish reform, we will have to fight each other in a very messy sort of civil war, probably without any kind of sidelines. But it seems much more practical for everyone to cooperate with each other precisely by avoiding such militant impulses. However, perhaps the issue to be dealt with is a degree of oppression by the small percent of the population that posseses a large part of the country's wealth. In this case, maybe the oppressed should be a bit more forceful. But maybe there are other alternatives, such as a more grounds up approach to attaining prosperity in our local communities. Perhaps we do not need the rich. Can change happen from the ground up, spreading from nonviolent revolutionary activity on local levels, or do we really need to change the country by seizing some sort of majority figurehead right at the outset? Are national political battles to some degree a distraction from real productive activity?
ReplyDeleteBottom Line(Agreeing with much of what Bretticus said): Yes, there are time which call for violent revolution. We agree with you there. We may differ on what qualities a certain situation must have to call for such a thing, but we do agree that it happens.
ReplyDeleteHowever, while you illustrated that violent revolution is sometimes the answer, you did not demonstrate that the United States is in such a situation. Which is where I part from your argument.
We are not quite there yet. I think that the troubled times often gives rise to extremist views and sensationalist language. I think that, not to dismiss you, this may be the case here.
Jacob
Also, why must it be violent? MLK and Ghandi, for example, defeated corruption without the use of force.