Do You Support John Brown's Revolutionary Violence

[The Brain]

I like how starting a devastating civil war with hundreds of thousands killed is seen as something positive that may justify acts of terrorism.

where would we be today without all the acw games? net good.

Last I played was North & South. I think I'd survive.

[PDH]

John Brown's impact was not his idiotic attacks, but rather his public face on trial.  Coming across as a doomed messianic man, bent and wracked by the struggles he faced, ended up with far more impact than a botched attack on Harpers Ferry.

It was a revolution only in his twisted mind, but it was public theater of the finest order in the court room.

[The Minsky Moment]

I disagree with the last part of your analysis. If you accept that it is permissible to use violence in defense of liberty and life of those unlawfully deprived of it (in this case slaves), the violence is permitted both by those who are directly oppressed and those who stand up in their defense.

Then you agree with the last part of my analysis, because that is what the last part says: "His enjoyment of those rights does not make slavery any less an evil and thus if one accepts slavery to be a basic moral wrong (as I do) his taking violent action in aid of the oppressed is morally justified."

BTW same response to ideologue.  I am not disputing the justness of Browns action, thought that was quite clear.  I am disputing ideologue's claim that the State cannot legitimately punish him simply because he acted justly.

[Ideologue]

It was clear.  I'm not clear on what your limit for a "legitimate" state is, except it's a lot higher than mine--which is fair enough, since I've taken a rather hard line on political legitimacy that "outlaws" about 99% of states which have ever existed, and probably more than half of the states which presently exist.

[Slargos]

States don't care whether you find them legitimate or not, Ide. You're insignificant.

[Ideologue]

I hear the wind.

[Slargos]

I don't think the wind cares either.

[dps]

I hear the wind.

And the voices in your head, I'm betting.

[Norgy]

I hear the wind.

Must be the cabbage I ate. Sorry.

To answer the question... ten-fifteen years ago I would've supported violence as a means to an end. Today, no. I've come to the conclusion that revolutionary violence leads to few or no immediate positives and that any political movement justifying violence as a "necessity" for a better future inevitably will use the same logic once in power and be impervious to criticism.

[Slargos]

   oh youre serious......   

[Norgy]

  oh youre serious......   

[jimmy olsen]

I hear the wind.

Must be the cabbage I ate. Sorry.

To answer the question... ten-fifteen years ago I would've supported violence as a means to an end. Today, no. I've come to the conclusion that revolutionary violence leads to few or no immediate positives and that any political movement justifying violence as a "necessity" for a better future inevitably will use the same logic once in power and be impervious to criticism.

Did Washington and co. have this problem? Did the abolitionists during reconstruction?

[Neil]

It was clear.  I'm not clear on what your limit for a "legitimate" state is, except it's a lot higher than mine--which is fair enough, since I've taken a rather hard line on political legitimacy that "outlaws" about 99% of states which have ever existed, and probably more than half of the states which presently exist.

Then that means your 'hard line' is wrong.

[Norgy]

The American "Revolution" was no revolution, but a powergrab from an already entrenched elite. It doesn't count. By the same accord, Norway's constitution of May 17th would be a revolution. It wasn't.

The abolitionists did not succeed in a revolution. Lincoln, as far as I can tell was elected. And swamping occupied territory with your own people is hardly revolutionary. In that case, the British, American and French occupation of Germany was "revolutionary". The violence probably wasn't primarily of their making, either, rather by a bunch of Southerners deciding now was an excellent time to revolt. So... the revolution you'd be looking for was in the South.

Now go bother someone else.

[citizen k]

The American "Revolution" was no revolution, but a powergrab from an already entrenched elite. It doesn't count. By the same accord, Norway's constitution of May 17th would be a revolution. It wasn't.

Reactionary.