patrick.net

CL says

I suppose he viewed it as a tool, and powerful where applicable, but that it does not preclude other tools of a violent nature.

Which is precisely how the Civil Rights Activists viewed non-violence - as a tool, but they all were loaded down with small arms in case of Midnight Riders and other assassins.

Rin says

Basically, if neither Gandhi nor Bose were around, along with those who'd advocated for them, I don't believe that Mountbatten would have left in '47. Instead, it would have been a decade long handover, more likely leading to a better outcome for independent India.

Hard to say, because the British Public wanted demobilization ASAP; the British only slowly demobilized after WW2*. Also, Labor's prime urban industrial constituency did not like Colonialism, period.

The British knew in the 30s they'd have to resort to trickery to keep India, so proposed plans to give self-rule to "Princely States" that would have control over everyday matters, but all the guns and final authority would still rest in British Governors and the Central Government headed by a veto-wielding British Viceroy.

* As an aside - Britain's Babyboom was delayed about 5-10 years after the US one. And crime in Britain began collapsing in the late 90s, when their last Boomer passed 30 (1965+30). Whereas in the US, whose Babyboom was about 5-10 earlier, started dropping in the early 90s (1960+30). Also interesting: countries whose babyboom corresponded to the US also had a similar drop off in crime, even when they didn't implement more prisons, mandatory minimums, community policing, or pursued incarceration for drug possession.

Reality says

Exactly, Rin. Economics determined that it didn't pay to run an empire, expecially when there are challengers. All the British colonies were headed towards independence and self-government simply because the cost of administration would be lower.

Yes, when sugar is no longer a high value commodity, Britain won't fuss much when Caribbean states want self-rule or to leave entirely. However, when they are very profitable... they'll station a huge portion of the British Navy to maintain them. When Rubber declines in value due to replacement by synthetic rubber and plastics, the Colonial power will leave Malaysia as the account books don't make the investment of foreign domination machinery worth it.

Churchill was bitterly opposed to any self-rule for India, much less Independence.

This all being said, it also helped that the Labor Party was in power.

But this doesn't explain Indochina and North Africa being held by the French and/or Spanish (Algeria/Morocco).

thunderlips11 says

Rin says

Basically, if neither Gandhi nor Bose were around, along with those who'd advocated for them, I don't believe that Mountbatten would have left in '47. Instead, it would have been a decade long handover, more likely leading to a better outcome for independent India.

Hard to say, because the British Public wanted demobilization ASAP; the British only slowly demobilized after WW2*. Also, Labor's prime urban industrial constituency did not like Colonialism, period.

The British knew in the 30s they'd have to resort to trickery to keep India, so proposed plans to give self-rule to "Princely States" that would have control over everyday matters, but all the guns and final authority would still rest in British Governors and the Central Government headed by a veto-wielding British Viceroy.

Military organizations don't like to demobilize, in general, however, the Suez Canal crisis, forced their hand in '56. Thus, I couldn't see the British staying in India past that year.

The problem with Non-Violence is it the outcome is unpredictable.

thunderlips11 says

Which kind of history?

Do you consider that to be an objective view on Lincoln?

Reality says

No, most of the 100 million did not die during wars. In fact, war deaths were excluded from the count. The 100 million was peace time death count; far more people died under those regimes during peace time than during the wars. The enormous famines in those countries starving tens of millions of people were direct results of their misrule: called "collectivization."

I didn't say they did - I said they died from a famine that FOLLOWED almost a decade on constant warfare, both internal and external, with all contestants looting and stealing to maintain themselves, as well as general chaos and disorder. Something not unheard of in history. There was also a famine 1946-1947, I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Germans marching to the Don, and then burning and destroying everything during their retreat which went right over and back again across the most fertile Black Earth of Southern Russia and Ukraine SSR, or because the Russians mobilized every male and most women into the Army or Industrial production, leaving the farms denuded of workers.Reality says

Ghandi's peaceful approach provided a route for the emergence of a political leadership that can continue the overseeing of trade and division of labor after indpendence. The violent alternatives would be a pointless exercise in terms of evicting the British. The communal violence between two ethnic groups after the British exit was fighting for a different set of competing interests altogether.

Gandhi was a non-entity after the 30s. He may have had a role in changing British opinion, but the INA strike made continued control of India impossible, as they lost the unwavering support of their Sepoys, the vast bulk of their enforcers in the Raj. When asked what role Gandhi played in the decision to Quit India, Atlee said "minimal".

WHICH phase of our freedom struggle won for us Independence? Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 Quit India movement or The INA army launched by Netaji Bose to free India or the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny of 1946? According to the British Prime Minister Clement Attlee, during whose regime India became free, it was the INA and the RIN Mutiny of February 18-23 1946 that made the British realise that their time was up in India.

An extract from a letter written by P.V. Chuckraborty, former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, on March 30 1976, reads thus: "When I was acting as Governor of West Bengal in 1956, Lord Clement Attlee, who as the British Prime Minister in post war years was responsible for India’s freedom, visited India and stayed in Raj Bhavan Calcutta for two days`85 I put it straight to him like this: ‘The Quit India Movement of Gandhi practically died out long before 1947 and there was nothing in the Indian situation at that time, which made it necessary for the British to leave India in a hurry. Why then did they do so?’ In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important of which were the INA activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, which weakened the very foundation of the British Empire in India, and the RIN Mutiny which made the British realise that the Indian armed forces could no longer be trusted to prop up the British. When asked about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 movement, Attlee’s lips widened in smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, ‘Minimal’."

www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060212/spectrum/main2.htm

It made economic sense for British to maintain a global empire in the first 3/4 of 19th century, simply because there was little challenge from anyone else. German challenge in thr late 19th century and then later American challenge made it cost ineffective to maintain an empire. The cost of building all those battleships of the late 19th and early 20th century exceeded the profit from monopolizing certain trade routes.

As for resistance from natives, the extreme end of push-overs were the Americans and Russians, whose continental empires faced largely ineffectual resistance and there were enough settlers to fill the "vacuum." Somewhat to a lesser degree, the British had the earlier and easier bites where the local resistance were minimal until they ran into the major colonial wars in India and South Africa against Dutch settlers.

The continental powers of Europe, like France and Germany, never had a good economic case for overseas colonies. Their overseas adventures were largely political reaction to British success, and were largely white elephant projects due to British already had the first - mover advsntage.

As for Churchill, he was more responsible for the destruction of British Empire than anyone else: by warring beyond means during both WWI and WWII.

The famines that killed tens of millions in the USSR and China were not at all caused by wars. The one in the USSR took place in the late 1920's. The Soviet regime had been well established by then. In fact, it was precisely the political "omnipotence" of the Soviet regime that made "collectivization" possible, to the extent that the regime was able to starve tens of millions of people after robbing them of food: it was the lower and middle rank cadres in thorough control of the country side who violently collected all the food because they did not at all need local political support but only answerable to their superiors in an idealized pyramid management system.

Likewise, the same thing happened in Communist China in the late 1950 ' s to early 1960's. Once again, it had nothing to do with war, but thorough top-down control of the population by the regime and it's pyramid of bureaucrats who did not need local support from below but only answerable to their superiors in the centralized power structure.

Bureaucrats lie. When they lied about food output in order to meet the quotas set by their superiors, the local people starved in droves. The biggest famines had nothing to do with war or disease or weather, but everything to do with abuse of power and the centralization fantasy.

Reality says

The famines that killed tens of millions in the USSR and China were not at all caused by wars. The one in the USSR took place in the late 1920's. The Soviet regime had been well established by then. In fact, it was precisely the political "omnipotence" of the Soviet regime that made "collectivization" possible, to the extent that the regime was able to starve tens of millions of people after robbing them of food: it was the lower and middle rank cadres in thorough control of the country side who violently collected all the food because they did not at all need local political support but only answerable to their superiors in an idealized pyramid management system.

Emphasis mine - but this is not my complaint. My complaint is that including the 1921 Famine in the "100 Million" as a "Mass Murder" - conflating the aftermath of nearly a decade of internal and external warfare to the policies of a government that was in control for about a year (and didn't collectivize yet).

If the Authors of the Black Book of Communism get to blame every death by famine on Communism, regardless of the factors, then there's a great case for blaming the Irish Potato Famine on Colonialism in Ireland, since the dependence of millions of Irish on the Potato is directly linked to the Corn Laws and the Distribution of the best Land for cash crop growing by Absentee Landlords - a UK Policy, not mere accident of nature. Had these policies not existed, then the Irish wouldn't have been so dependent on the Potato.

By extension, we could also blame every death from malnutrition 1929-1932 on Hoover, since his inability to prevent this was directly related to his preference for laissez faire policies.

As well as all the famines in India that happened under the Raj - and there were many, like the Great Famine of 1876, which is attributed to the policies that encouraged cash crops over grain growing, and despite the Famine, the British "Free market" exported countless tons of grain to the UK. Can we assign those millions of death to Colonialism or Capitalism too? After all, distributing grain to those who can pay the highest price is a policy.

Reality says

Likewise, the same thing happened in Communist China in the late 1950 ' s to early 1960's. Once again, it had nothing to do with war, but thorough top-down control of the population by the regime and it's pyramid of bureaucrats who did not need local support from below but only answerable to their superiors in the centralized power structure.

Yep, just like the bureaucrats at Investment Banks and Ratings Firms with MBS. Or Enron. Or Global Crossing.

Just like the Soviets had to turn to foreign grain imports, the Financial Sector had to turn to taxpayer bailouts.

thunderlips11 says

The famines that killed tens of millions in the USSR and China...

...were the result of collectivism.

Colonialism is not a form of free market, but a form of central planning. In fact, large socialist countries were / are indeed run like a colonial empire: with commissioners / commissars / governors appointed from above instead of being selected by local elections.

Likewise, crony banking under the central banking system is not at all free market, but the 5th plank of the 10 planks proposed by the "Communist Manifesto" itself.

Non violence is not a tool, but a choice; Government is a tool, for some people to control others, and it can be and usually is used by others against you! Think about that for a moment. Here is an interesting article on a form of government by choice as opposed to the continental mentality of pyramidal slavery system espoused by people from continental cultures:

http://www.friesian.com/thalasso.htm

Reality says

Colonialism is not a form of free market, but a form of central planning.

So when the King gives a Company a charter to settle Massachusetts, that's central planning. Is it central planning when the government leases Alaska Oil Fields to Exxon?

Reality says

In fact, large socialist countries were / are indeed run like a colonial empire: with commissioners / commissars / governors appointed from above instead of being selected by local elections.

So 19th Century Britain was Socialist?

(BTW, I'm reading your article, disagree with some of it, like what the RN losing out to the US has to do with controlling the interior of India given the US is not competing with Britain in that space, or that control of the countless tons of Indian Cotton didn't help the British Textile Industry, but it's interesting)

Reality, would you agree with me that 1870-1913 was probably the peak of laissez-faire capitalism in the US?

Reality says

The famines that killed tens of millions in the USSR and China were not at all caused by wars. The one in the USSR took place in the late 1920's. The Soviet regime had been well established by then. In fact, it was precisely the political "omnipotence" of the Soviet regime that made "collectivization" possible, to the extent that the regime was able to starve tens of millions of people after robbing them of food: it was the lower and middle rank cadres in thorough control of the country side who violently collected all the food because they did not at all need local political support but only answerable to their superiors in an idealized pyramid management system.

Your analysis is shallow and simple minded. The communist system was certainly partly to blame but China and Russia had famines long before communist rule. More people died in China from famine in the early 1800's than 1958-62. The Russian famine of 1601-1603 killed one third of the population. Drought would have made for famines in China and Russia the 20th century even if neither country went communist. Communism certainly made it worse, but people would have died of famine anyway during those periods. To say communism caused all these deaths is absurd.

Most famines are the result of maldistribution of food. There is enough or almost enough food, but it's poorly distributed. Which isn't just a communist failing. Large amounts of food were exported from Ireland all during the potato famine. It was certainly a big factor in China 1958-62 where grain was shipped to the cities while starvation was widespread in rural areas. Russia used famine as a political tool. The biggest famine in 32-33 (there was no famine in the late 20's) was simply genocide to break Ukranian resistance. Genocide by famine is far from being exclusive to communism.

thunderlips11 says

Reality, would you agree with me that 1870-1913 was probably the peak of laissez-faire capitalism in the US?

It was the peak, but it was far, far from laissez-faire. Government and business were inextricably intertwined during the period.

Lips

Lincoln did get about 1 million Americans killed, ostensibly to abolish slavery, yet no other country had to have a war to abolish slavery.

indigenous says

Lincoln did get about 1 million Americans killed, ostensibly to abolish slavery, yet no other country had to have a war to abolish slavery.

The British didn't have a war against slavery, but they did stop the slave trade by military force, reserving unilaterally to themselves the right to search any ship suspected of dealing in slaves. I believe there was an exception for the Portuguese for a time going between West Africa and Brazil.

The other reason the British could abolish slavery is that it was primarily used in their Sugar Islands, where armed resistance to liberation by a handful White plantation owners was utterly impossible.

Contrast to the American South with a White population of millions and a large contiguous territory. Furthermore, the South was aggressively pushing for more Slave States, and angry that the North was trying to stop the extension of Slavery westwards. The population of Slaves increased dramatically from the Revolution to the Civil War. There were NO signs that the South was ratcheting down the use of slaves; all the evidence is that they wanted to extend it. They even proposed annexing Cuba and making it a state in order to expand the area where slavery was practiced in order to gain more votes to preserve and expand it.

Southerners even organized into terrorist bands called "Bushwhackers" or "Border Ruffians" who assaulted Free Farmers in Kansas, for the purpose of scaring free staters away so they could dominate the territory and create another Slave State.

Here's a terrorist named Quantrill, he killed more than almost 200 men and boys ("Anyone old enough to hold a rifle") in one night in Lawrence, Kansas, dragging them from their homes and executing them in front of their families, then burning the whole town down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Quantrill

There are neo-Confederates today who celebrate him; many of his followers emerged in the West where they became famous Outlaws, like the James Brothers.

Another one, Bloody Bill Anderson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_T._Anderson

bob2356 says

Russia used famine as a political tool. The biggest famine in 32-33 (there was no famine in the late 20's) was simply genocide to break Ukranian resistance.

I agree with everything you wrote, but would say the Holodomor was an attempt to force peasants into cities, those who moved to cities got fed. And it was a Soviet-wide policy that effected Russians, Jews, Caucasians, Germans, and everybody else, in fact two of the worst areas were east of the Don, outside of the Ukraine's borders. Nor is there any documentation in the Soviet Archives that show targeting of Ukrainians because of ethnicity, (and Ukrainian ultranats have been pouring over them like crazy for decades now) only a desire to move stubborn Peasants to the cities. For this reason, it's Oppression, but not Genocide.

Can we consider enclosing of the commons to be a Holodomor of British peasants? "I'm raising sheep here now, piss off to the city or drop dead, you villein!"

We could also talk about scalping, for which the Colonies and Mexicans paid bounties with innocent Indians and even Mexican farmers being scalped since they were easier to catch than armed, hiding Indians.

The Indian Removal Act, but also the Canadian Indian Act, which forcibly relocated Indians, and eventually, required Passes for them to travel freely and forcibly took children from their parents, where they were sent to Religious Schools so vicious, where children were starved for weeks as a form of discipline, the death rate from malnutrition attendant sickness was very high.

In 1909, Dr. Peter Bryce, general medical superintendent for the Department of Indian Affairs (DIA), reported to the department that between 1894 and 1908, mortality rates at some residential schools in Western Canada ranged from 30% to 60% over five years (that is, five years after entry, 30% to 60% of students had died, or 6–12% per annum). These statistics did not become public until 1922, when Bryce, who was no longer working for the government, published The Story of a National Crime: Being a Record of the Health Conditions of the Indians of Canada from 1904 to 1921. In particular, he alleged that the high mortality rates could have been avoided if healthy children had not been exposed to children with tuberculosis.[38] At the time, no antibiotic had been identified to treat the disease.

thunderlips11 says

I agree with everything you wrote, but would say the Holodomor was an attempt to force peasants into cities, those who moved to cities got fed

Probably true, but there was most certainly some backlash at the ukraine in particular which was a sore spot for many years with peasants sabatoging the collectives. The numbers say there was probably just enough food to go around, but it was withheld in a planned manner to maximize punishment of the area's that resisted collectivization. A quotation by Viktor Kravchenko in his book I Chose Freedom: “It’s a struggle to the death. It took a famine to show who is master here. It has cost millions of lives, but the collective farm system is here to stay.” says it all. Robert Conquest in the Harvest of Sorrow makes a pretty solid case for this also. I think genocide is appropriate as a description.

There was no doubt drought was also involved, in 1932 many of the grain crops were lost to fires across the area. There would have been localized famine no matter what even if the tsar's were still in power.

bob2356 says

I think genocide is appropriate as a description.

I get your point, but democide might be a better word as many non-Ukrainians were victims, and it wasn't targeted at Ukrainians specifically.

The Ironic thing about Maiden is the pulling down of Lenin Statues, as he was the one who founded the first Ukrainian State since the coming of the Golden Horde. Stalin was much more of an anti-ethnic chauvinist, ironic because he was a Georgian.

CL says

2nd, it appeals to white liberalism in that non-violence is believed to be an effective tool when confronted by injustice or state sponsored violence.

I'm a white liberal, and I don't believe that. Would a policy of non-violence have stopped the Nazis? Why would it work on police who are essentially psychologically identical to the Gestapo? The police look at the public, especially blacks, in the exact same way the Gestapo looked at Jews, as subhuman scum that should be eliminated. Why is it OK to use whatever violence is necessary to stop murdering Nazis, but not murdering police officers? Is the life of a private U.S. citizen today worth less than the life of a Jew in the 1940s?

Now, if there is actually a way to stop the murderers without using violence, of course that is preferred. But history has shown no such alternative. The problem with the violent outrage is that it is undirected. People are smashing stores that have nothing to do with the perpetration of these crimes instead of smashing police stations and attacking the guilty. Image if every black American purchased an assault rifle, got an open carry license, and traveled armed in packs of ten with smart phone apps to call 10,000 others if approached by police. Then they videoed the cops, not interfering with actual law enforcement, but also not allowing the cops to violate a single law and placing the cops under citizen arrest if they do. I bet police would become much less violent very quickly.

Of course there's a chance the police would try to gang up against the citizens with swat teams, but with 10,000 armed citizens, they'd get slaughtered and this would never happen again. And that would be the first legitimate use of the Second Amendment in all of American history, an armed militia made up of private citizens keeping the local, state, and federal government in check. And as a white liberal, I love that idea.

But as someone familiar with our history and culture, I also know that is a pipe dream.

CL says

What do you think, pro or con, on the efficacy of non-violence? Do you have any historical support for that belief?

https://prospect.org/article/baltimore-police-thuggery-real-violence-problem

From the article

We should treat killer-cops as thugs and criminals, too.

Exactly. And if the government is unwilling or incapable of doing that, the people should take back political and legal power from the government, by force if necessary. To say otherwise is to say the American Revolution was not justified and our government is not legitimate.

We can start by removing the policies that protect law enforcement AND judges and prosecutors from being punished for misconduct.

For example, looking somebody caught smoking weed (that's it) in solitary for 5 days with no food and water, with those responsible only being suspended for a few days and written up. They are still LEOs to this day, and the only people who paid for it were the taxpayers.

Or, a Judge arresting a potential Jurist who admits their bias prevents them from being impartial, whose religion prohibits them judging anybody, and insists they avoid even looking at sinful acts, in this case the videotaped rape of a child. Despite this aggressive violation of the Law and Tradition, she's a practicing attorney, was allowed to retire, and was neither charged with a crime nor disbarred from practicing law. And, because of this judge's omnipotent and uncontrolled violation of the law, the case had to be retried.

More at Popehat:
http://popehat.com/2015/05/06/two-stories-about-the-criminal-justice-system-and-consequences/

We've gone way off track to talking about Stalin from the idea that non-violence is overrated (and preferred by those in power as it's ignorable, especially in the days of tazers and tear gas, which allow you to remove protesters without having to beat them senseless). This is largely my fault for allowing myself to be sidetracked with the usual right wing bullshit distraction tactics. As I said before, if "Community Leaders" had written a letter to the Authorities about Gray, these cops' behaviors would be investigated, much less charged with crimes.

thunderlips11 says

We can start by removing the policies that protect law enforcement AND judges and prosecutors from being punished for misconduct.

Absolutely, but we need to go further than that. In order to make violent revolution not necessary, non-violent revolution must be possible. There needs to be a court system run by citizens that holds the police and prosecutors and judges accountable for crimes. This citizen court system must have the power to overrule unjust laws and laws written to protect criminals within the government.

For law enforcement, every second a cop has a badge or a gun must be recorded digitally and stored on servers where our vast prison population reviews the video looking for crimes. Who better to police the police than the prisoners who are motivated to see the cops arrested for wrongdoing? And the more prisoners we have, the more eyes we have watching the police. That alone will make the state want to minimize the prison population. The prisoner's accuracy can be measured in real time and the reports from the most accurate prisoners given priority.

Furthermore, the freedom to vote should be a right, not a privilege, meaning that the state cannot take that freedom away from a person even if he is convicted of a felony. This will eliminate the primary motive of the prison industry.

Of course, a court system is not a non-violent solution as all court systems must have a force that uses violence and the threat of violence to enforce the court's rulings and authority; it's merely a much more organized and directed use of violence. The police will resist arrest.

thunderlips11 says

the idea that non-violence is overrated

I'll buy into the non-violence philosophy as soon as the other side does. As long as one side is using violence and the other is not, the other side is going to get slaughtered. People willing to initiate violence against others do not respect those who do not. The Gestapo, by any name, must be violently opposed.

Dan8267 says

I'll buy into the non-violence philosophy as soon as the other side does. As long as one side is using violence and the other is not, the other side is going to get slaughtered. People willing to initiate violence against others do not respect those who do not. The Gestapo, by any name, must be violently opposed.

Absolutely, Dan. Non-violence is typically a one way street. Great Example: Control of Ireland by the British. We'll steal all the best land, give you no political power, and set up policies that keep you utterly dependent on us to stay alive. We'll beat you and torture you and kill you if you don't obey or practice civil disobedience.

Violently resist, and it's clear everything we said about you being an Irish Nigger was right, and we are going to put you mad dogs out of your dangerous misery - and are morally justified in doing so.
Dan8267 says

Furthermore, the freedom to vote should be a right, not a privilege, meaning that the state cannot take that freedom away from a person even if he is convicted of a felony. This will eliminate the primary motive of the prison industry.

Yes, it's no accident that many states - and especially in States with a long history of brutal repression (the South) - take away voting rights forever from one conviction. You could get into a stupid bar brawl at 23, live a perfect life the rest of your years - even be a Combat Veteran, and still be banned from voting.

Or, like Florida, simply discount the vote of anybody with the same name as a convicted felon, even if they were born after the felony was committed.

thunderlips11 says

Yes, it's no accident that many states - and especially in States with a long history of brutal repression (the South) - take away voting rights forever from one conviction. You could get into a stupid bar brawl at 23, live a perfect life the rest of your years - even be a Combat Veteran, and still be banned from voting.

Worse--if you are not even convicted, the arrest record alone will bar most gainful employment for years to come, if not your entire life (except in NY and CA, and perhaps a couple other non-Southern states I'm not aware of). You forego a large opportunity at upward mobility. Disenfranchising minorities and non-whites is definitely part of the agenda in addition to curbing the vote.

Dan8267 says

I'm a white liberal, and I don't believe that. Would a policy of non-violence have stopped the Nazis?

I know your definition is the historical one, but I suppose I mean what is commonly accepted as "liberal" in America. American liberals love the idealized Gandhi or MLK, because it bolsters their belief in what I can only compare to magic; the oppressor will be overwhelmed with guilt, or the public will be so outraged that the oppressor will cave and a period of peace and harmony will ensue.

I used to think we had lost our ability to have collective shame of that magnitude (due to Faux News phony outrage, ADHD, Smartphones, 24 hr news cycles, etc), but I think that it was never really as powerful as we had been led to believe. Seeing the post Kent State polls blaming the students who "got what they deserved" seems to indicate that we aren't all that moved by rights and human dignity, or the liberal democratic tradition.

I thought this was interesting: http://theredphoenixapl.org/2009/10/18/gandhi-was-wrong-nonviolence-doesnt-work/

"If the right is becoming increasingly violent, not only in its rhetoric but its actions, and there is plenty of evidence that this is true, to whom should the poor progressives appeal to?

Not exactly his point, but interesting to think that that non-violent resistors might have liberals on their side, but are "targeting" the violent with non-violence. They are trying to appeal to people who by definition don't believe in non-violence. Sounds like a fool's errand and a circle jerk.

"Far more important is the fact that those who have elevated non-violent resistance, which should be seen only as a tactic and not a strategy, to the level of a religious creed, would have progressive forces accept failure and defeat for the sake of an idea that is not shared by the other side. As alluded to before, the ruling class has no qualms about violence when it is used in its favor. It is only when they are on top that they want peace and stability."

indigenous says

yet no other country had to have a war to abolish slavery.

That's a fault I'd lay at the hands of the southern ruling class, who brainwashed the poor whites under them into thinking slavery was in their interest to defend.

Gosh: Come to think of it, that situation sounds familiar.

Dan8267 says

Exactly. And if the government is unwilling or incapable of doing that, the people should take back political and legal power from the government, by force if necessary. To say otherwise is to say the American Revolution was not justified and our government is not legitimate.

That's what I think too. France and America, but also Haiti. How long would Black Haiti have to wait until they were treated with human dignity? 400 years? More?

I know the Right tends to believe that Lincoln's "War of Aggression" was unnecessary because slavery was going to end soon on its own accord. That doesn't do much for the countless generations that came before then (if you believe the premise) who were born, lived and died in subhuman bondage. I'd want freedom in my own lifetime, and would be willing to resort to just about anything to achieve that end.

From Gandhi's Doctrine of the Sword, "But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish, it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature. A mouse hardly forgives cat when it allows itself to be torn to pieces by her."

In other words, non-violence is only a valid tactic when it is coming from someone who has the ability to punish and refrains. Certainly not the case with the American minority population.

HydroCabron says

That's a fault I'd lay at the hands of the southern ruling class, who brainwashed the poor whites under them into thinking slavery was in their interest to defend.

And yet more free Blacks lived in the South than the North. If it were as bad in the south as you say then why did they stay?

No I have to say that Lincoln caused the war. Lips talks about Britain not needing a war because they did very little labor intensive work in Britain like they did in the south, but Britain was not the only country that had slavery and ended it without war.

Not to mention that Lincoln started the war by supplying Fort Sumter. He bypassed habeas corpus for thousands of reporters in order to keep them quiet about the war, 80% of tariffs were being paid by southern states with most of the benefits going to the north, which was the sole means of revenue for the Federal Government at that time (which is probably the real reason for Lincoln's actions), along with the fact that Lincoln wanted to implement mercantilism to the benefit of the North. The cronyism that Bob talks about. Which I would think would have ended by the 1870s?, he did not free one slave in the North through the Emancipation Proclamation.

CL says

I know the Right tends to believe that Lincoln's "War of Aggression" was unnecessary because slavery was going to end soon on its own accord. That doesn't do much for the countless generations that came before then (if you believe the premise) who were born, lived and died in subhuman bondage. I'd want freedom in my own lifetime, and would be willing to resort to just about anything to achieve that end.

Right, but the problem with the "Slavery Woulda Disappeared" theory is that slavery was dramatically expanding into the US going into the Civil War, and the internal interstate slave trade (actually breeding slaves and forcibly separating them from their families) took over from the trans-Atlantic Trade. In 1790, most Southern Planters would have thought Slavery would slowly die out; by 1830 their sons and grandsons were rabidly intent on expanding it.

This is a favorite argument over at neo-confederate Symp sites like Mises. Here's the proof it's BS:

... and why they don't incorporate charts into their articles.

Ah, and don't forget the Fugitive Slave Act:
If it's legal for me to kidnap people and make them work for me and beat them when they don't comply in my state, so if I visit your state, your state laws be damned - my kidnap victim is still my property.

"My State's laws in your State, too, by the Power of the Southern Dominated Supreme Court and thus the Federal Government."

After all, only a Statist Tyrannical Authoritarian Regime would seize somebody's property just because they crossed a border.

Damn Southern Activist Judges.

indigenous says

No I have to say that Lincoln caused the war. Lips talks about Britain not needing a war because they did very little labor intensive work in Britain like they did in the south, but Britain was not the only country that had slavery and ended it without war.

My main thrust was that Britain didn't need to go to war because the Plantation Owners of Barbados and Jamaica couldn't have possibly, as island nations, revolted successfully against the might of the British Navy.

You're also ignoring my point that the British ended Slavery world wide, by unilaterally searching ships and impounding blackbirders.

indigenous says

And yet more free Blacks lived in the South than the North. If it were as bad in the south as you say then why did they stay?

Not that many blacks lived in the north at all. If they were free why would they move? What would be their reason?

We have a serious Russian propagandist/apologist here. LoL

1. No, Holodomore had nothing to do with forcing people into the cities. It was a policy to extract the maximum from the farmers in order to finance the big heavy industrial projects planned by the Soviet regime, many of which turned out to be big white elephants and couldn't possibly pay for the farm products they want via mutually willing exchanges. They applied what they thought were core pillars of colonial exploitation on their own people the farmers. The result was economic collapse. Their colonial exploitation economic model simply doesn't work. Ruthless exploitation simply doesn't work even when dealing with internal "colonies/natives."

2. The American Civil War did not start over slavery, but over import tariff. Lincoln made it quite clear in his first inaugural speech that if it would take slavery to keep the union together he would enforce slavery; not just letting the southern states keep slavery but also enforcing slave return laws in the free states! The Emancipation Proclamation took place only half way through the war, and it did not free a single slave but only a diplomatic device to keep Britain and France from intervening on behalf of the South like France intervened on behalf of the 13 colonies during the earlier secession struggle.

3. When talking about "colonialism" in social economic discussion, the subject does not refer to the original granting of "excessive population" migration charter of the 16th century, but the global land grabs of the mid to late 19th century. Yes, of course those conquests were carried out on behalf of a very mercantist central planning agenda: envisioning the monopolistic control of the local native resources and markets in "colonies." The 16th century colonies were set up for the purpose of getting rid of over population, little different from the founding of new settlements since time immemorial; whereas the late 19th century "colonies" entailed the de facto enslavement of vast local native population by a thin layer of white adminstrators.

4. In an ideal world, pumping oil from Alaska should involve no more than a $5 registration fee as far as government involvement is concerned, just like the homesteading of Oklahoma that attracted so many Americans and European Immigrants alike. So that the barrier to entry is low and competition will let the nature's bounty benefit all people who need to use oil without the government taxation in the middle. We do live in a real world however, where thugs like the Russian regime would kick out oil companies after they invested billions of dollars in oil infrastructure, like what happened in Sakhalin oil projects a decade ago. In order to prevent Alaska from becoming like Sakhalin, someone has to pay for the defense necessary to prevent the predatory takeovers. So some fee has to be paid one way or another in order to defend the property rights associated with the investment. Whether such arrangement is central planning is highly dependent on the amount of fee involved. The defense part is of course central planning, as in Pentagon vs. Stavka (or whatever it's modern incarnation is called). The drilling and technology part in the US is much less centrally planned compared to Russians.

5. 19th century England had all sorts of schools of thoughts. Even Karl Marx and Frederick Engles were living in England. Nations that were/are accustomed to top-down state slavery systems for the bulk of their population tend to see what they want to see and copy the worst dehumanizing schools of thoughts coming out of England: the Prussian learned and copied Eugenics from England; the Russians and Chinese learned and copied Marxism from England.

The slave population in the US was actually growing significantly slower than the US population in general. For exmaple, between 1850 and 1860, the US population grew by 35+%, whereas the slave population grew by less than 25%.

The rapid population growth at the time had a lot to do with declining infant mortality and generally improving standards of living as transportation technology improved and trans- regional and global trade in the first half of 19th century

One thing to keep in mind about this is that government by definition does not use reason. It's only motivation is it's own self interest and or survival. To this end it only uses force. The reason part comes from the individual. So the greater the manifestation of reason the greater the influences of individuals, your Voltaire, Queen Elizabeth, and Thomas Paine types.

@CL

Have you thought about the slavery imposed on you by your citizenship? Your liability to have to have a passport to go anywhere outside the country of your birth (i.e. a form of proof that you are owned by the country), and if you are a US Citizen your liability to life time taxation regardless where you live in the world?

Have you thought about bursting into a Section 8 household and tell them they should be freed from the bondage of the bureaucrats at the housing authority or the food stamp bureaucrats or their kids from public schools where the teaching agenda is set by someone else or the medicine they are getting . . . All of which are free but quality and quantity decided by someone else, their effective overlords . . . Just like slaves living on a large plantation with senior slaves deciding who gets what free housing free food free education free medicin, etc., etc.

John Brown did try. What he found in response was apathy, just like what you'd find today in a section 8 household if you tried.

The typical slave owners of the mid 19th century probably cared far more about the well being of their slaves than today's section 8 bureaucrats about their charge. . . Just like you'd care far more about your own car, especially if it represents the bulk of your networth, than you'd care about a rental car.

No, this is not an apologia for slavery. However, slavery comes in many forms throughout human history. Public rental slavery resulting from centralized top down government treatsthe individual slave far worse than private owership of slaves.

Reality says

2. The American Civil War did not start over slavery, but over import tariff. Lincoln made it quite clear in his first inaugural speech that if it would take slavery to keep the union together he would keep slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation took place only half way through the war, and it did not free a single slave but only a diplomatic device to keep Britain and France from intervening on behalf of the South like France intervened on behalf of the 13 colonies during the earlier secession struggle.

Sorry, this is Neo-Confederate Bullshit.

The Tariff of 1857 featured the lowest tariff rate in more than a decade.
The Morill Tariff of higher rates did not pass until after the core 7 Southern States seceded from the Union in 1861. This argument is similar to the Smoot-Hawley Canard.
John C. Calhoun wrote "Slavery is a Positive Good", not "Tariffs are a Negative Evil".
Bleeding Kansas was over Free vs. Slave States, no Jayhawker or Bushwhacker ever committed acts of violence over the Tariff Rates.
As were the endless squabbles between Clay and Calhoun. They always compromised over Tariffs, for example, the South got more fortifications in return for a tariff increase.
The Southern Dominated SCOTUS issued decision after decision to allow slaves to remain property of their owners, not only if the Slaves escaped there, but even if the kidnappers took their Slave victims to Free States.
Dred Scott and the debates over the Fugitive Slave Act caused Riots, but not Congressional Tariff horsetrading.
The "Peculiar Institution" of the US was always described by foreigners as Slavery, not the Tariff Schedule.
The elderly Sumner was not beaten by South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks with a club over Tariffs, but over his remarks about Slavery.
Every pre 1865 mention of States Rights is almost always in the context of Slavery.

And most importantly, the Confederate Constitution was almost a verbatim copy of the US Constitution, except where Slavery was concerned, where most of the fundamental differences occur:
https://cwemancipation.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/slavery-in-the-permanent-constitution/

The most obvious example:
US Constitution, Section 8:

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.

Confederate Constitution, Section 8:

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

As the Confederate Constitution stated, it would literally beyond the power of any Confederate Government to eliminate slavery in the future. So much for the "on it's way out soon anyway" argument.

And here, from the Horse's mouth, Calhoun:

'I consider the tariff act as the occasion rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things...The truth can no longer be disguised, that the peculiar domestick institution of the Southern States and the consequent direction which that and her soil and climate have given her industry, has placed them…in opposite relation to the majority of the Union…'

At best, Tariffs were a "Sideshow" to Slavery.