Do You Support John Brown's Revolutionary Violence

[Norgy]

If I had The Battle Cry of Freedom on hand I'd quote where he expounds on the war's revolutionary nature, but I don't have it with me.

I wouldn't debate that the war, and indeed other wars, like the Franco-Prussian war, WW II, WW I and more doesn't introduce revolutionary change. Changes often imposed by the winning side, one might add. There is, however, a reason why we don't call World War One The Rather Huge Revolution For Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary That Lasted For Four Years. Now the comparison may be dishonest in that there was no clear war goal of regime change, unlike in the ACW, yet I would still call a war a war.

Regime change, the violent overthrow of a previous regime, is more often considered a revolution when done by internal forces rather than external. Drastic policy shifts may be labeled revolutionary, yet freeing the slaves or extending the isn't a revolution.

As for the glib remark about the American Revolution, it was an inaccurate paraphrase of Howard Zinn's view, as he puts it in A People's History Of The United States or whatever it was called.

Anyway, if I say "almost every revolutionary movement has had a tendency to both eat its own children and create a worse regime than it replaced, and therefore I don't support armed revolution", I suppose that still is a fairly accurate description of my stance.

[The Minsky Moment]

The Civil War itself was not a revolution, but the political revisions that arose out of the war -- mostly subsequent in time to the actual hostilities - are of sufficient significance that IMO it is fair to refer to as a "revolution". 

[The Minsky Moment]

As for the glib remark about the American Revolution, it was an inaccurate paraphrase of Howard Zinn's view, as he puts it in A People's History Of The United States or whatever it was called.

Fun book but need to keep a pile of grained salt handy as you read.

[dps]

The Civil War itself was not a revolution, but the political revisions that arose out of the war -- mostly subsequent in time to the actual hostilities - are of sufficient significance that IMO it is fair to refer to as a "revolution". 

Most of those revisions are so far removed from the Civil War in time that it's problematic IMO to even describe them as results of the war.  Within a fairly short time after the war, the southern planter aristocracy was once again in power throughout the south, and while slavery was abolished de jure, the economic and social structures of slavery still existed de facto. 

[Razgovory]

The Civil War itself was not a revolution, but the political revisions that arose out of the war -- mostly subsequent in time to the actual hostilities - are of sufficient significance that IMO it is fair to refer to as a "revolution". 

Most of those revisions are so far removed from the Civil War in time that it's problematic IMO to even describe them as results of the war.  Within a fairly short time after the war, the southern planter aristocracy was once again in power throughout the south, and while slavery was abolished de jure, the economic and social structures of slavery still existed de facto.

Counter-Revolution.

[viper37]

But then, slavery is used to beg the question: what do you do when law and order support an unjust regime, even if a democracy? You wait?

that begs the question: what is an unjust regime? 

Today's anarchists believe our regime is an unjust one, corrupt by the rich and powerful who aim to keep their priviledges by keeping those below them in a state akin to slavery.
They feel justified to violently protest and trash everything they can.

Some people feel, like that guy in Norway, that democracy is a tool for the corrupt elites to maintain domination over the people and have no choice but to act themselves.  To them, violence is justified to prevent slavery to an alien culture.

The problem with legitimizing violence in a democratic country, by a third party not directly implicated in slavery is that you can use it to justify any sort of actions.  AFAIK, there was no slave's revolt with John Brown, it went nowhere.
Yet, through democracy, a series of measures where eventually voted, over time, to restrict slavery.  Some of these measures became unaceptable for a group of people who decided to break away from the country and it ultimately led to freedom for every slaves.

But what did Brown's action accomplished?  Nothing.

Slavery was abolished in most countries via democratic and peaceful means.

[The Minsky Moment]

Most of those revisions are so far removed from the Civil War in time that it's problematic IMO to even describe them as results of the war. 

The 13th through 15th amendments were definitely results of the war; they never would have been passed in its absence.  In fact, there are typically called the "Civil War Amendments."  Those amendments in themselves fundamentally altered the architecture of American government, the collapse of Reconstruction notwithstanding.

[Martinus]

Slavery was abolished in most countries via democratic and peaceful means.

Yes, but it took time (and in America it needed a civil war, but that's besides the point). So how many slaves died, murdered by their owners, whether directly or because of inhuman conditions they were in, in the time it took for the democratic process to kick in?

100? 1000? 10000? Where do you draw a line when we are talking about human life and freedom?

As for your argument that some consider the modern society unjust and some don't - well this is a bit like arguing that ethics does not exist since it means different things to different people. Only because some people are wrong, does not mean it is impossible to be right. Your outlook is very relativist.

[Malthus]

The problem with John Brown is that of judging events in hindsight. Most people (Lettows aside) more or less agree that slavery is wrong and that it is okay to combat slavery with violence; in hindsight, John Brown's actions did, indeed, have the effect of in part triggering the events that lead to the demise of slavery, and his manipulation of public opinion in court towards that end was masterful. [Mind you, that event was a horribly destructive civil war ...]

The problem is that the violence John Brown used to combat slavery was tinged with a strong degree of lunacy, and in other circumstances could easily have had the opposite effect to that intended. Good can come out of lunatic violence it is true, but that possibility does not justify lunatic violence - even in the best of causes.

It is like the "just war" problem - the use of violence has to be "just" both in motive and execution. 

[Admiral Yi]

Fun book but need to keep a pile of grained salt handy as you read.

Graining the salt is just too much damn work.

[Martinus]

The problem with John Brown is that of judging events in hindsight. Most people (Lettows aside) more or less agree that slavery is wrong and that it is okay to combat slavery with violence; in hindsight, John Brown's actions did, indeed, have the effect of in part triggering the events that lead to the demise of slavery, and his manipulation of public opinion in court towards that end was masterful. [Mind you, that event was a horribly destructive civil war ...]

The problem is that the violence John Brown used to combat slavery was tinged with a strong degree of lunacy, and in other circumstances could easily have had the opposite effect to that intended. Good can come out of lunatic violence it is true, but that possibility does not justify lunatic violence - even in the best of causes.

It is like the "just war" problem - the use of violence has to be "just" both in motive and execution.

Well, I think we all agree that he was not very productive. My position is more of an abstract one I must say.

[Ideologue]

It is like the "just war" problem - the use of violence has to be "just" both in motive and execution.

I don't like that "reasonable chance of success" stuff.

[Malthus]

It is like the "just war" problem - the use of violence has to be "just" both in motive and execution.

I don't like that "reasonable chance of success" stuff.

Why not?

[derspiess]

It is like the "just war" problem - the use of violence has to be "just" both in motive and execution.

I don't like that "reasonable chance of success" stuff.

Because calculating your risk = bad? 

[Ideologue]

To answer your questions, gentlemen, I think it is a strategic concern, not a moral one.

There is no moral dimension to the surrender or passivity to an unjust cause, thereby making injustice more profitable for the wrongdoer.  This is the moral and evolutionary value of spite--even if it means defeat or death, by hurting an opponent as much as you can, you damage their ability to do unto others what they have done unto you, and contribute to their eventual defeat.

Because of this, the threat of spite is also a powerful negotiating tool.

Further, if the logic of "likelihood of success" was internalized at an individual level, you would often fail to motivate an individual (short of punishment) to fight at all.

To take an extreme example of what I mean, if you lived in a country which decided your tiny minority ethnic group was to be wiped out (or enslaved, or deported), is it less moral to fight to extinction than to accept extinction (or enslavement, or deportation) without resistance?

I suppose this practically applies principally, if not entirely, to defensive struggles, but I don't think anyone would have accused, say, Switzerland of being engaged in an unjust war if they had unilaterally attacked the Nazis in 1943, inviting defeat and destruction upon their own country.