PDA

View Full Version : Right To Revolution...



four_five_one
20-05-2010, 09:58 PM
This Thailand situation has made me think - at what point is OK to overthrow the state in armed revolution? How much repression is necessary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution

Not much more to say now. Just curious what others think.

four_five_one
21-05-2010, 06:06 PM
Looks like that point has already been reached in Thailand - red Siam is the socialist faction within the red shirt movement - Thailand:

The Announcement of Sayam Dang (Red Siam) No. 4.
"Our Path Towards True Democracy".

Dang Siam 've Been Following the situation During the months of April and May of 2010, Which ended in a brutal suppression Government on Democracy advocates with all the military forces and "the legal system.". We Have Followed the announcement to end a rally for Democracy at Rajprasong on May 19 to save Lives. And we witnessing the People Have Been 'discontent over Thailand's aristocracy and Its ancient regime.
Here Are Our stance:.

1. We all commenda Individuals Who Gathered together for Democracy, Both in Thailand and overseas, in the true courage Expressing Political and progressive thoughts of all These Years Along Uprising. Clearly They are ready to Overcome Any Obstacles immediate in order to Achieve True Democracy in the near future. We wish to Insist That Does Not End Their devotion in vain, But Become a continuation of the next major stages.

2. We admire all UDD leaders in doing Their very best to save precious Lives of the people. Their contribution to Our course is Duly noted, Despite A Few Differences in Ways and Means at times.

3. We Declare That Any Attempt of "Democratic reform" has now ended. From today, the journey we begin of Democratic Revolution of Thailand Until We Achieve one.

(sorry for translation...)

Goodbye red shirts, hello IRA...

four_five_one
21-05-2010, 06:59 PM
.

four_five_one
21-05-2010, 07:14 PM
Army dressed like journalists, shooting into temple, sniper in "self defence", killing of clearly marked medics. Any convention not broken?

Does anyone think that a regime behaving like this to delay elections six months was committed to holding elections in six months?

dd528
22-05-2010, 06:04 PM
Off the top of my head I think that calling it the "right to revolution" is something of a misnomer. I would subscribe to some kind of Hegel-influenced model of rights, where rights exist by virtue of their being demanded and enforced. In a typical modern society, it is largely the role of the state to enforce rights, via mechanisms of the judiciary and penal system. So to talk of the right to revolution - an action which has as its essence the destruction of the body that is typically responsible for the enforcement of rights - is a bit misleading. Someone who believes rights have some kind of divine or non-anthropocentric origin might disagree.

But having a right to do something and it being morally permissible or even morally desirable are not the same. If you believe that what is morally right or wrong is largely a function of the kinds of social and intellectual relations that characterise a given society or community, then you might say that if enough people feel oppressed to the point where they rebel, then the revolution is de facto morally justified. But, at the same time, this assumes that what the majority think is best is what is actually best. And even if that were the case, it's not obvious that revolutions, even so-called 'popular' ones, always have the support of a majority of people in a country. In Iran in 1979 or Ukraine in 2004-5, even though hundreds of thousands or millions of people filled the streets, many times more than that stayed at home. Obviously not everyone has the mental or physical strength to protest, but even taking that into account, there are always many people in favour of the status quo.

And I think it's worth considering that how moral a revolution is will largely be judged historically by the actions of the regime that came to power after the revolution, rather than the regime that was ousted. The cruelties and massive inequalities of Tsarist Russia do little to cast the Gulags or the Great Purge in a better light. What you get after a revolution will always be different, but different is not necessarily better.

At the end of the day I think that popular revolution is one of the purest types of democracy in action. Whether it is morally justified or not, and irrespective of what the outcome is, it is the voice of the people made concrete in radical structural reform. For good or for bad, the public gets what it wants, and then lives with the consequences. The very fact that events are dictated from the bottom up, rather than from the top down, counts for something, I would say.

Off the top of my head.

scottdisco
23-05-2010, 10:53 AM
At the end of the day I think that popular revolution is one of the purest types of democracy in action. Whether it is morally justified or not, and irrespective of what the outcome is, it is the voice of the people made concrete in radical structural reform. For good or for bad, the public gets what it wants, and then lives with the consequences. The very fact that events are dictated from the bottom up, rather than from the top down, counts for something, I would say.

well put at the end there.

in terms of tipping points, i always think Romero's quote about insurrectional violence concisely crystallises a view... ...there are certainly, at the very least, at least several govts in the world today that long ago crossed any sort of Rubicon, for sure.

that wiki summarises semantics on the right vs duty front etc, good link four_five_one, cheers

four_five_one
23-05-2010, 06:40 PM
Great post dd528, already quoted it several times today. I will respond substantially tomorrow.

thanks for yr support Scott! (A true democrat).