OMNILIBRIUM
  Rational Discussion of Controversial Topics


GO TO THE MAIN THREAD Sort By:


Fwiffo 26 May 2015 08:11 AM
54%

Is this supposed to be an appeal to authority? I have more of the impression that the deal with Russian is that resistance would be futile not that it would be wrong.

It could be argud that the Indian mass civil disobience worked because the British are not that keen on massmurder of nonresistant people. Russia might not similarly apply (after all their non-optional military service has a death rate).

There is off course that nobody wants to be the first to start disobeying. If somebody sees that there would be no point in disobeying the effectiveness of individual refusal is diminished. If you see the power as very illegimate you might disobey just out of spite even at great cost to yourself (ie sentiments of rather being dead than helping the devil).

There is also the difference that India could just go back to what they used to do. Russia would need a replacement governance and it would seem there is no consensus on what it should look like. It is easier to demand something when you know exactly what you demand. It is also more questionable whether it is better to be under corrupt governing or under no governing at all.

stars0
Reply


melian 26 May 2015 10:35 AM
70%

Does every quote has to be an appeal to authority? I simply thought there was no need to be original on this question.

what Gandhi did in India to make the british realise how dickish it was to colonize India. They just stopped following their british overlords and didn't resist when punished. It's hard to run a colony like that so eventually the british agreed to formally recognise that they had no power over the Indians.


The British that colonized India and the British who agreed to its independence were not the same British. The former were members of a private business company motivated by profit. The latter were government officials who had little personal interest to preserve the British colonial empire.

How do you pacify a non-violent resistance?

The British could do it the same way they pacified violent rebellions in the past - with violent repression measures. Had they been ready to use enough force, they could still be ruling India.



stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 26 May 2015 10:51 AM
56%

There was no explicit mention in which sense the quote was used and I didn't find it that well match the issues being talked about.

A violent rebellion isn't supposed to get slaughtered down. When slaughter a non-violent resistance you play it just as they wanted (showing how cruel you are). When you kill a violent uprising it is no longer violent. If you kill a resistance that refuses do work it still won't work. The same logic doesn't apply. It's not clear a violent repression would have worked. That is during strikes management sometimes does more hands on work. But can you run a colony only with the soldiers? I guess eventually you could repopulate a cleansed land with british citizens but it is not clear that would have been a practical option.

stars0
Reply


melian 26 May 2015 06:06 PM
70%

When slaughter a non-violent resistance you play it just as they wanted (showing how cruel you are).

Many rulers donít care whether they are considered cruel. Some actually consider it useful.
guess eventually you could repopulate a cleansed land with british citizens but it is not clear that would have been a practical option.

Executing ringleaders and harshly punishing any acts of disobedience is enough to terrify most of the population into submission. It worked for the British in 1858 and it was still working for the USSR a century later.


stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 27 May 2015 03:46 AM
56%

It can be the question of what reaction cruelty induces in the population. Fear can inhibit action but aquiring an aura of being an acceptable defiance target can incite action.

What I understand the deal with India was that the resistance was deep rooted enough that decapitation tactics wouldn't have worked so efficenty. That is the file and rank was not so keen on submission. The effectiveness of terror tactics can vary. It is a strategic calculation on whether there is mechanics base for the civil disobience to aquire the outcomes. If Gandhi knew that people would be prone to cave in or that the british would really be ready to slaughter everybody he probably would not try to get people to resist in the same way. The emotional mastery required for a large number of people to really turn the other cheek is commenable (that is it would be somewhat understandable to break the resistance by breaking out into a riot but that didn't happen (that much)).

It is somewhat interesting if the British were more ready to be cruel in the name of profit but refused to be cruel in the name of the country. Or really depressing if the reason why India was ready to be given away was that there was no profit to be made in keeping it (ie your interest towards a village lessens after you have already pillaged it).

stars0
Reply


melian 27 May 2015 05:02 AM
70%

The problem was not that there was no more profit to be made in India (quite the contrary). The problem was that the profit went to the British government instead of a narrow group of East India company shareholders and its local agents.
What I understand the deal with India was that the resistance was deep rooted enough that decapitation tactics wouldn't have worked so efficenty.

Are there examples in modern history where a truly massive terror campaign failed to crush the opposition (excluding cases of external interference, such as Pol Potís overthrow by the Vietnamese invasion)?


stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 27 May 2015 08:34 AM
56%

That is still pretty sad that if a private company is willing to occupay a nation just to have untaxed income but is unwilling to keep up the activity when taxed. That is not how the iron price is supposed to work out.

Stasi failed over the population of East Germany as the Berlin wall came down? The problem with coming up with examples is that the situation very seldom escalates to massive terror campaigns. I can only think of North Korea and US nuking Japan as campaigns of sufficent scale. Arguably that the Japanese were not giving up despite losing a war was a symptom of "ordinary levels" of carnage were not sufficent. Sometimes the argument for the nuking is presented that by threatening with super massive annihilation the lives given up in decimation of the cities was smaller in number that would have been lost if the war would have been grinded to the end via conventional weapons (it's still a bit hazy what extra value did the bombing of the second city give).

One could ask whether the black person put down campaign is a terror campaign and if it is which side is winning. Also terrorists not giving up vs the US doesn't count as massive as the damage done is very little (but maybe we are measuring via fear and it properly measures as massive?). It's also very hazy whether US was compromised or not and even if it had signifcant impact whether that counts as crushing or not. But then again US military arsenal has not been enough to win by intimidation (althought the threat of less than humane treatment if captured can be thought off as a terror component). The US kinda toned down its missiles when too many were hitting hospitals. So while they had the capability to keep up a carnage they were not willing to (what part of that is international pressure and what part US soldiers not wanting to knowingly shoot into civilians is up to interpretation).
... read more


stars0
Reply


melian 30 May 2015 11:43 AM
70%

Stasi failed over the population of East Germany as the Berlin wall came down?


There was no massive terror campaign in East Germany when the Berlin wall came down. That was precisely the problem for the Communist regime - their chief was suffering from cancer (just like the Shah of Iran during the revolution) and the lesser officials were afraid to take responsibility.




stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 31 May 2015 07:28 AM
56%

East germany did mass surveilance of their population. I think it was supposed to affect people also indirectly by having it be clear that they might be watching is a reasonable risk. That is people would behave differently because of fear of being seen and that would be a terror tactic.

stars0
Reply


melian 1 June 2015 03:22 PM
70%

To be effective, fear must balance hope. As long as the regime appeared to be strong, mass surveillance and a few occasional shootings were quite enough to keep the population in line. But in 1989, after the reforms in the USSSR, people in other socialist countries gained hope that the change is possible for them too. In China, Deng very effectively crushed this hope with tanks. In East Germany, the leaders did not want or dare to give that order.

stars0
Reply


VoiceOfRa 28 May 2015 12:25 AM
61%


I can only think of North Korea and US nuking Japan as campaigns of sufficent scale.


How about the Stalinist and Maoist purges (not to mention the cultural revolution).


One could ask whether the black person put down campaign is a terror campaign and if it is which side is winning.


Well, the anti-white pogroms in Ferguson and Baltimore appear to be succeeding.


But then again US military arsenal has not been enough to win by intimidation (althought the threat of less than humane treatment if captured can be thought off as a terror component).


LOL. What on earth are you talking about? Compare what happens to US personal, or even rival Islamists, captured by Islamists to what happens to Islamists captured by the US. If the US was even remotely serious about intimidation the people running Abu Ghraib would have been given promotions rather than being punished.


Hitler tried to kill jews off but didn't pull it off.


And if he hadn't invaded the rest of Europe at the same time, he probably would have succeeded.


stars0
Reply