How much violence is justified in achieving a better society?

Your problem is the "better society", not the violence. We somehow deluded themselves into thinking that violence is bad, that it's "not civilized", as if all great civilizations weren't built on violence, that only savage Africans and Middle Easterners can be violent while men of the west must act like good beta goyim, never confrontantional and trying to solve every conflict with a discussion.

Didn't Hitler use the whole "our opponents are a bunch of thugs" thing to his advantage a lot?
Yeah, thanks, Antifa.

>before
corrupt shithole with awful monarch and diminishing relevance
>after
superpower that created laws that last to this very day in multiple countries and conquered most of europe and beyond with army consisting of man that often didn't have a pair of shoes

the ends justify the means but its impossible to answer this question in hindsight because admittedly it rarely worked outside of cases of abolishing some shit kings

>When has a violent revolution ever turned out good?

The US Revolution? The French Revolution? The Revolutions across Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries?

6 million deaths

>How much violence is justified in achieving a better society?

A lot. Only dumbshit ahistorical "Centrists" actually believe non-violence works and that violence has no place. (largely because centrists just want the status quo which is defended through massive police violence and coercion)

The revolution was supposed to achieve equality, brotherhood and liberty, it achieved neither of those. Instead it relapsed back into monarchy within a couple years, and Bonapartist retards are having seizures of cognitive dissonance where they view the 19th century equivalent of Julius Caesar as someone who ended absolutism and hierarchical order.
Then it went back and forth between various monarchies and republics, got utterly BTFO in a couple wars, and modern France is not even worth spitting on as it's a rotting secular shithole full of Arabs and niggers.

>The French revolution
>achieving a better society
It started several Wars, the Great Terror, exacerbated famine and ended up installing the 19th century manlet equivalent of Hitler on the French throne

nice reading comprehension

You're not telling us the whole story.

>The French Revolution?
>Good.
nope.

The American is a good one, despite civil war. The French was a shitshow that threw the country into 30 years of anarchy, civil unrest, tyranni, famine and war.

So, this is " violence", ok. But, what can you say about rise of republics and democracies, about liberalism, feminism, secularism, the Declaration of the Rights of Man? .

>that only savage Africans and Middle Easterners can be violent
And all that violence worked like shit for reform.
For example, most of the looters arrested during the LA riots were people who were turned in by their neighbours, because no one wants to bring groceries to the neighbourhood were they burned all the stores over a cry of (legit) discriminatory legal bullshit.

The French Revolution has an influence far beyond France of 19th century.

I don't know if I'm completely stupid but I have a hard time deciphering this post and what's it trying to say.

None.

All the violence is justified if it's exercised on the right people.

>every revolution across Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries was bad.
Whoa. Does not expected such level of prejudiced argumentation.

That "why can't we be more like the legendary ethnic and political instability of the Middle East and Africa?" is one of the dumbest things possible.

Whatever it takes as long it will achieve actually better society.

t. Lindybeige

He wrote were instead of where

Does violence even correlate with something becoming "better" at all?

Even if requires just only one single punch to the face of some random dude?

Childhood vaccinations.

>vaccinations
>violence

"Better" in relation to what in this case?

Raising children often requires some degree of violence.

so did the plague

Spotted the woman.

It's not about wanting to be like Africans, it's about realizing the fact not only Africans are violent, and violence actually achieves shit. Name a single great culture that wasn't built on violence. Greeks, Romans, Aztecs, Brits, Germans, French, all of them became great thanks to using violence.

The future of the child, and people around him.

Until the problem ceases completely

What if you just want to jack someone else's land? I mean if you're too powerful for them to stop you, what really guarantees their soveriegnty, a piece of paper? "Right of Conquest" used to be the way of the world until 70 years ago, what makes you think we can't go back to that?

Soon

Violence is the only solution for leader if he want to save discipline and order among his people when they are facing Prisoner's dilemma.

Until provfits>costs

PSA that the US "revolution" was not actually a revolution, it was an independence war.

All of it.
The problem is ensuring that violence is actually directed at achieving a better society and not just the appeasing the egos of raving ideologues and fanatics. So far there's no real way of doing this.

taxes

well said

t. anglo

Any amount of violence is justified in vanquishing oppressive forces to make the world a better place. If we declare that a certain level of violence is too extreme, then our enemies will exceed this level and they will win.

What's much more important than quantity of violence is its quality -- is violent action being used properly to achieve revolutionary aims? History has shown that sporadic revolutionary terrorism, the kind preferred by Nechayev and Bakunin in the 19th century and Al-Qaeda and ISIS in the 21st, doesn't work. Individual acts of terrorism only enable the counter-revolutionary denomination of your movement and are never widespread enough to actually shrug the yoke which oppresses you.

Violence must be surgical and justifiable, conducted only through the mass consent or participation of a revolutionary population. We must ensure that the people being hurt or killed are our oppressors and this violence strengthens our position against them. Violence must protect the vulnerable rather than intimidate the indifferent, and must always be rooted in strategy rather than emotion.

Antifa groups in the West are mostly ineffective because they have no discipline, no stated aims, and usually no organization besides a Discord server or group text. Smashing windows or kicking over trashcans to stick it to the man doesn't achieve anything except brief emotional satisfaction and distracts us from the real revolutionary struggle. Much more significant are the progressive groups nestled within American communities, like the local Democratic Socialist chapters or working class collectives that start communal gardens or provide free car service to people in Seattle or Compton. These are actual revolutionary organizations that recognize power comes from the people, not from a group of edgy kids in black clothes, and these groups know that insurrectionary violence in the US right now can only do harm.

So should we take up arms against the state, which is the crystallization of violence and an organ of oppression against working class people?

The revolutions in England, America, France, Haiti, Mexico, South America, Russia, Korea, China, Cuba, Egypt, Vietnam, and arguably Iran all established new societies more comfortable and less tyrannical than what existed before. This doesn't mean these societies weren't still massively dysfunctional. A revolution overthrows one ruling class and installs another, and unless this new class abolishes social hierarchies and installs democracy in all aspects of life further revolution will be necessary.

You can actually read about the material changes that happened in those societies during and after the revolutionary transition or you can eat my ass.

There's absolutely no comparison between Napoleon and Hitler except that they both expanded the dominance of their nation over many others. By this broken understanding, Truman and Eisenhower are the most Hitlerian figures of the postwar era given the degree to which they expanded American influence over other government and economies.

>an organ of oppression against working class people
>The revolutions in England, America, France, Haiti, Mexico, South America, Russia, Korea, China, Cuba, Egypt, Vietnam, and arguably Iran all established new societies more comfortable and less tyrannical than what existed before.
Leftism is a mental illness

Again, read about those societies before and after revolution. Do you really believe the average Russian farmer in 1950 was healthier or more prosperous in 1900? The severe poverty of Haitians is still a major improvement from slavery.

Revolutions happen for a reason.

But, what about indirect harm/nintentional threat?

I actually stopped taking you seriously the moment I read the 'government is an organ of oppression against working class people'. In your attempt to appeal to authority you only came across as laughable. Whatever you say is not worthy of being listened to, any books you recommend should be burnt on that basis alone, you should be ridiculed for being an indoctrinated marxist and sent to a Siberian work camp where you can live(read: die) with the rest of your comrades.

In other words, I sincerely hope you slowly die in pain.

How's Russia this time of year?

Enough to change the status quo. Anything more is not justifiable.

Name a single culture that has not achieved shit and wasn't built on violence.

youtube.com/watch?v=VQAWhKhEbg8

youtube.com/watch?v=pmKplTyqapo

youtube.com/watch?v=kzfdZ1RHABg

>Name a single great culture that wasn't built on violence
Achaeminids were legendarily gentle in their occupation.
In fact, the more stupidly violent you are(assyrians, mongols) the faster your shit will collapse.
Violence kinda works if, like the romans, you bring something that improves the quality of life for the people, and make them stop acting like niggers.

Wanting simply to be violent because you are butthurt Ahmed next door beats his wife and has a stupid chip on his shoulder when interacting with society, while the same thing is a faux pas on your behalf, is moronic.

The American Revolution, but that was because it was led by lawyers, judges, generals businessmen, men who respected the principal of the rule of law and for all their many flaws (such as slavery), wanted to establish a government that was more just and fair than the one they had spilt so much blood to overthrow. To that end, they instituted the separation of powers, Separation of Church and State, endowed the states with specified rights, other such checks on centralized power.

By comparison, most other revolutions are led by lowly power-hungry maniac and his band of misfits whose movement was born in street brawls and bar fights. They have no respect for the idea of written law. They have no interest in creating a system that governs its subjects fairly and justly and redresses their grievances. To them, the Leader or the Party is the law. To them, power is not something to be wielded with great care, but used as a bludgeon against enemies, real and imagined. The goal is not establishing a system that is fair and just, but one that exerts dominance.

You write like a redditor and don't have any argument beyond "lol I disagree".

The revolutions I described were fought by desperate people whose lives were constrained and threatened by social hierarchies like feudalism, slavery, capitalism, and imperialism. The Tsar was not overthrown because a few hundred liberal and socialist writers thought a more radical society would be a good idea. Revolution happened because millions of everyday Russians, millions of professionals and peasants and urban workers, resented the military draft and Tsarist oppression and yawning social inequality and believed that further inaction could come at the cost of their lives.

Each of those revolutions involved old hierarchies hierarchies, some ancient and some new, being torn down to create a more liveable future. This is why they revolted and why, even in situations where mistakes in revolutionary policy led to disastrous results, these hierarchies were not rebuilt.

>England, America, France, Haiti, Mexico, South America, Russia, Korea, China, Cuba, Egypt, Vietnam

Immeasurably better than under the tsar!

blogs.bu.edu/guidedhistory/historians-craft/katherine-ruiz-diaz/

Before emancipation under Alexander II, 36 million Russians out of 49 million were landless serfs with no property other than their own two hands.

If only you could measure suffering to the relief of a better society.

Take in account that the main goal of civilization is to tame ourselves in order to get better living, by giving the monopoly of violence to a higher institution.

You could argue that violence is justified if the social contract is not fulfilled and there is no way to change it within the boundaries of civilization.

The revolution was successful yes, but the replacement government that followed was feeble and the replacement government that followed the replacement government was feeble. It wasn't until a civil war that killed near a million, and then 100yrs after, that the replacement to the replacement government was actually able to rule effectively (at least for a while). Of course, not to mention all the deaths in the revolutionary war.

What is your opinion on the IRA pre and post independence?

In a democracy, when the system has become utterly corrupt and fortified itself against any real influence by the voters.

This isn't the case in America because most such problems are due to voter apathy letting the corporations and government get away with dumb shit. People need to organize and get off their asses.

In other words you're a retard who dismisses ideas that make you feel uncomfortable.

What alternate universe are you from? The only thing you got right was the first shot at a Federal government being anemic.

Don't know as much about later IRA activities as I should, but the violence employed by the first IRA was absolutely necessary to liberate the Irish nation from British oppression. If the Irish people had not made their rulers bleed, they would not have inccurred a great enough cost upon the British troops to scare them off of Ireland.

From what I understand, later IRA organizations incorporated revolutionary terrorism into a broader program and went to great lengths to avoid harming civilians. But Northern Ireland is still part of the UK and British capitalists still dominate the Republic of Ireland, so I guess this was not very successful.

Articles of Confederation were shit
Constitution was good but states still didn't listen
Civil War was a result of states not wanting to listen
Even after Civil War, most constitutional rights didn't apply to states until the supreme ct made it

The question is, was the violent revolution worth the causalities as the "better society" took over 150yrs to finally become effective.

Every government oppresses the working class, dude. When it's not actively beating labor organizers and busting up strikes, governments pass laws that help businesses owners to the expense of the workers and gut our social services.

I'm a differently guy who isn't interested in the violence debate and am pointing out how absurd your exaggerations are.

absurd in what way?

You're argument appears predicated on the idea that ruling effectively requires greater control by the federal government, for example. That was never the goal when the Constitution was crafted. I agree that the Civil War was caused by Federal vs State friction, but calling a the attempted balancing of powers and freedoms weak, especially when American history is one of nearly continuous development from a fragile little experiment to a world power, is laughable.

It was the goal when the constitution was crafted, the whole reason the articles were scrapped was due to how weak the federal government was. Perhaps the congregation in 1776 didn't originally intend it to be that way, but they quickly realized that confederacy was not something they were capable of dealing with. And a government that guarantees rights to it's citizens, but doesn't provide them, has every reason to be referred to as weak.
Also being a world power is more about having really big guns.

lol you think punching someone will change anything? you have to hack their fucking brain not try to make them a martyr. idk if you are antif or not but you sure do have their idiot mindset. we live in a pretty passive era. most people can be changed (or at least be put in their place) if you can outthink everything they say.

user, I......

BETTER

SOCIETY

>Assyrians
>fast collapse
What? They lasted for over 300 years.

as much as is necessary, which isn't much

>soviet citizens didn't have clothes or shelter
Like I get the famine joke, but do people actually believe this nonsense?

Dutch 80 years' war

He also said a lot of stuff about the only way the nazis would have been stopped was if they were violently put down when then first started organizing

violence is justified when its used in self defense against unreasonable violence from your authorities.
But, what people fail to understand, is that we need some objective basis for morality as a measurement for "unreasonable violence" otherwise we're going to be in an endless downward spiral of violence for the sake of "progression" because our feelings, emotions and desires will be the basis for change. This is why a rigid religious or authoritative society will always be superior over a secular one.

let me reiterate
violence is justified when used in self defense against unreasonable FORCE from authorities, not just violence.

This doesn't actually change the fact that you were wrong about everything post-Articles.

The average /pol/lack lost its ability to differenciate memes from reality long ago.

>Iran

>How much violence is justified
All of it. The winner is always justified in hindsight.

explain how then

...

>that 5'2 Mexican/Asian anarcho communist cutie

Fuck dude...

A police state that was a cuck to the West was replaced by an anti Imperialist police state with Islamist elements.

Both are pretty shit in different ways, but at least Iran's government since 1979 has cared about Iranians.