Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuts.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuts!orb From: orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: "Reds" vs "fascists":Reagan's remarks Message-ID: <485@whuts.UUCP> Date: Tue, 14-Jan-86 13:00:18 EST Article-I.D.: whuts.485 Posted: Tue Jan 14 13:00:18 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 17-Jan-86 03:32:32 EST References: <1783@teddy.UUCP> <39000044@ISM780B.UUCP> <449@whuts.UUCP> <351@cisden.UUCP> <459@whuts.UUCP> <452@ssc-bee.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 62 > > Fr. Woolley, I maintain my consistency in opposition to war and violence > > by anyone whether it is the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or the > > French and American invasion of Indochina. Reagan does not. > > I also consistently maintain support for democracy and the people's > > right to govern themselves and control their own lives. > > Reagan does not. > > > > tim sevener whuxn!orb > > > Tim, what is your opinion on the American Revolution and the Civil War? I think the American Revolution was exactly the sort of situation in which Gandhian tactics of nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience could have been successful. The Americans won the American revolution essentially because most of the population was in sympathy with the revolutionaries. Despite Britain's advantage in military might per se the revolutionaries had the advantage of the people's positive support for their cause and resistance to the British. I believe in most cases of colonies achieving their liberation or a people withstanding external aggression that it is the sympathies of the general population which is far more important than military might. Thus the Vietnamese defeated the world's strongest *military* force and the Afghans may soon be successful in forcing the world's second strongest military force to withdraw primarily because of the people's widespread support. However at the time of the American Revolution such techniques had not yet been invented. Gandhi's successful movement to free India and Martin Luther King's nonviolent leadership of the American Civil Rights Movement both developed such techniques and showed they could be successful. I would argue *more* successful than armed revolution by violence. That is where I also depart from many leftists who justify the violence committed by armed revolutions because their ends are legitimate. One can contrast India and China as examples - while India has many problems it never suffered the bloodbath which China suffered as the armed Marxists under Mao came to power. (India did suffer the riots between Hindhus and Moslems but not due to the government itself) This does not mean that bloodbaths or dictatorships will *always* occur after armed revolutions - the US proves this is not the case. But given an armed revolution led by people who have already justified murder and violence as means to achieve their ends, it is far more likely that such leaders will use similar justifications to massacre opponents "for good reasons" (as they will explain it) after they come to power. I am very much afraid that the ANC's turn to violence in South Africa will bring to power the most radical and extremist when the white-ruled apartheid regime is finally toppled. I fail to see where the violence has accomplished anything which could not have been accomplished as well through nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience. For one thing refusal to use violence would give the Jerry Falwells of this world absolutely no justification for attacking the ANC. For another thing it could be just as disruptive of the government internally and just as galvanizing for world opinion. The people amassed in peaceful demonstrations at funerals lately has been more conducive to getting sanctions against South Africa than bombings. tim sevener whuxn!orb