←back to thread

116 points wslh | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
amatecha ◴[] No.42162344[source]
The degree of wisdom and truly "evolved" thinking demonstrated in this letter is deeply inspiring. Simultaneously, it conversely seems to support the idea that you can't really reason with fascists because their hunger for power (and destruction) is essentially insatiable and they won't stop because someone spoke some convincing words.
replies(3): >>42162476 #>>42162658 #>>42166055 #
throwaway10oct ◴[] No.42162476[source]
I respectfully disagree because Gandhi's approach may seem idealistic, but in reality, nature functions on the basis of survival of the fittest.

Nonviolent methods often require the possibility of violence as a backdrop to be effective. Otherwise, they might not yield the desired results.

While Gandhi's philosophy sounds nice in theory, it may not always be the most practical in real-world scenarios.

replies(7): >>42162504 #>>42162558 #>>42162601 #>>42165691 #>>42166509 #>>42167007 #>>42167760 #
throw0101b ◴[] No.42165691[source]
> While Gandhi's philosophy sounds nice in theory, it may not always be the most practical in real-world scenarios.

In her book Civil Resistance: What Everyone Needs to Know:

* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44096650-civil-resistanc...

* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10056014-why-civil-resis...

Erica Chenoweth has an appendix listing six hundred movements dating from 1900 which are classified in how violent they were. She found that those that used violence (more) succeeded in achieving their goals 25% time, but those that did not use violence (at all, or much less) succeeded over 40% of the time: you almost double your odds by eschewing violence.

Further, movement that were violent and succeeded were more likely to be oppressive/authoritarian (possibly because the movement leaders internalized the possibility that the same methods would be used against them: the overthrown often don't end up in pleasant places in those situations), while non-violent ones were less likely to be (though no guarantee, with 1970s Iran being the main outlier).

So it appears that the general historical record seems to support Gandhi's philosophy.

replies(3): >>42165834 #>>42165846 #>>42196705 #
wslh ◴[] No.42165846[source]
> So it appears that the general historical record seems to support Gandhi's philosophy.

The world has been shaped by power and wars, an undeniable fact that stands without the need for statistical gymnastics.

replies(1): >>42166045 #
1. throw0101b ◴[] No.42166045[source]
> The world has been shaped by power and wars […]

Yes it has.

It has also been shaped by non-violent methods, e.g., one of the biggest being the fall of Communism, which was done without wars and those without power in: Poland (Solidarity); the Baltic countries (Singing revolution); Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (Baltic Way); Czechoslovakia (Velvet Revolution).

It was done in the Philippines (People Power Revolution), etc.

replies(1): >>42166154 #
2. wslh ◴[] No.42166154[source]
> It has also been shaped by non-violent methods, e.g., one of the biggest being the fall of Communism, which was done without wars and those without power...

That said, I believe you are tackling some highly complex topics here. Have you explored well-researched studies, such as “The Strategic Defense Initiative and the End of the Cold War” [1]?

[1] https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36697931.pdf

replies(1): >>42166425 #
3. throw0101c ◴[] No.42166425[source]
Communism is just one example, and is multi-faceted (e.g., internal Soviet/Communist economies), which is why I also mentioned People Power. Chenoweth's book has a myriad of peer-reviewed references and a list of ~600 movements since 1900.

There are a lot of folks in this discussion—many of whom I suspect are Americans and may have a particular (historical) view of how to gain "freedom"—who seem to jump to the 'violent struggle' path. I'm simply pointing out references that support the possibility that is not the only path, and other ones may actually be better, especially in more recent decades (as opposed to what happened hundred-plus years ago).

replies(1): >>42175116 #
4. wslh ◴[] No.42175116{3}[source]
Non-violence as a guiding principle is noble and inspiring, but it doesn’t eliminate the need for robust defensive measures.