V for Vendetta

[Glock Glockler]

I have seen it twice and loved it, easily in my top 10.

[Antibubba]

The government portrayed in "V" may have been conservative, but if it was a reference to our own, I couldn't see it.  Our conservatives still want to see themselves as against big government, no matter how they might actually behave.  But this was Fascism shown.  Not to say that this country couldn't be moved that way, with "The Church" fully incorporated into the scam, but while Xtianity might be the main religion in America, I can't see it ever becoming state-sponsored (and besides, which denomination?).

Eternal vigilance...

[Guest]

Forget about the "left versus right oriented totalitarianism" for a sec.

What I got out of it is, it's part of the debate about whether people can (and should?) change a government through violent or peaceful means.  Basically, is MLKJr the appropriate model, or Huey Newton?

Prayers, or bombs?

Ghandi affected social change via non-violent means.  BUT he himself was dead wrong about what would be needed to do that in Germany under Hitler.  Ghandi wrote two letters to Adolf Hitler trying to get him to "play nice".  Didn't work out so well.  But worse, Ghandi advised the Jews of Europe to peacefully surrender to whatever the Nazis wanted to do while acknowledging that a heck of a lot of 'em would die.  He felt that their peaceful sacrafice would convince the Nazis to turn themselves around.

Bzzzt.  Wrong answer.  Bigtime.

There are people out there so evil that flat-out killing them to death is the only sane, moral and practical answer.  Ghandi couldn't see that.  A lot of today's left can't either.  I'm not sure whether MLKJr. realized it.  I suspect he did but decided that the USofA circa 1960ish was morally no worse than Britain circa 1945 in India, which is probably about right.

In my view, the peaceful tools of Ghandi/King are just that, a tool to be used when possible but set aside when not practical.  That's when things get ugly to prevent uglier.

V MOVIE SPOILER ALERT BELOW!















In "V" they came up with an interesting middle ground.  Assassinate the top-level creeps and then use Ghandi/MLKJr-style non-violence resistence against the lower ranks and hope that with the "head cut off the beast" the lower levels will hold their fire.

It's...hmmm...not entirely crazy.  Unlikely, yeah, but...

Makes me wonder whether we should have dealt with Saddam via plain ol' assassination.  Of Saddam and his sicko sons.  A decent case can be made for it...













Spoiler over.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm not sure whether MLKJr. realized it.  I suspect he did but decided that the USofA circa 1960ish was morally no worse than Britain circa 1945 in India, which is probably about right.

I think you may be asking the wrong question here.  Violent overthrow is something to be seriously considered only after petition, protest and politics have failed.  Such violence is justified by necessity, not by what the other side is guilty of.

[Guest]

I'd have to disagree with you on the assassination of Sodamn insane and Co.  Guess it depends on what your ultimate goal is.  If all you want to do is destabilize Iraq to the point its no longer a threat to anyone outside of that region, it MIGHT have worked.  The wildcard you have to watch for is who would get his WMDs? (yes, he had em', one molecule of VX or Sarin negates any "bush lied" argument you might pose".  most likely, you whack them guys, a couple of rouge generals take his place and you have a civil war between various and sundry raghead religious groups, with the possible factor of Chemical or Biological weapons in the equation.

sadamn being sadamn, I believe that the only real option we had, was to take him out, and then try to sort out the aftermath to our best advantage as we are doing now.

[Guest]

Sorry about that last thread, just read it after posting, and realized that it was a massive thread drift. my bad.   The "V" movie was awesome and i will pry go see it again this weekend.

[Guest]

Fistful: We SERIOUSLY disagree.

If it is clearly unsafe to speak out based on what's happened to others who have done so, it is not necessary to voluntarily stick your own head on the chopping block.  That's the time to hoist the Jolly Roger and start cutting throats.

NOTE: "unsafe" is definable as "gonna get you killed or disappeared" - NOT "gonna get you thrown in the county jail for a few days (or even months) until a judge brings the local cops under control and pops you loose".

I hope the difference is clear.  I say that as somebody jailed for 18 hours in San Diego for daring to excercise my right to observe the counting of the vote during an election...a right I excercised completely unarmed.  I'm not trying to brag, I'm simply saying that this issue isn't theoretical to me.

[Guest]

I don't see any thread drift.  We're discussing exactly what the movie was about, and the ideas it makes you ponder.

[Perd Hapley]

If it is clearly unsafe to speak out based on what's happened to others who have done so, it is not necessary to voluntarily stick your own head on the chopping block.  That's the time to hoist the Jolly Roger and start cutting throats.

And hoisting the Jolly Roger* and cutting throats won't lead you to the chopping block?  Violent revolutions may be proper at times, but they are certainly no way to avoid being "killed or disappeared."  The point is that either route will be dangerous to your health, but which is appropriate to the situation?  It seems to me that violent overthrow must, first, be morally justified; and second, enjoy popular support.  Otherwise, you're just having a temper tantrum that gets you, and the cause, in worse trouble.

Jim, MLK's approach worked.  He was killed, and it still worked.  If I remember right, PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES, as in more than one, were listening to the man.  His approach swayed public opinion.  Black Power violence would only have proved that Blacks were a dangerous race to be kept in their place by repression and occasional lynchings.

 

*the Jolly Roger is a symbol of either freelance piracy, or piracy in service of a hostile govt.  Either way, this is an odd symbol to use for the defense of one's rights.  Yes, I know, it comes from a well-known quotation.

[xd9fan]

I have no dought that if the talk of terrorism was alive and well in 16th century England,  Each and every Founding Father would be labeled as a terrorist.  

The beauty of the Founding Fathers as that their/the Declaration of Independance (to the world)  

".....The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world......"  

gave them the moral high ground.  

They simple said we dont like this and we are leaving this tryanny.  And the British response was "No" you will stay with us or you will die.   And so we did not start the fight...we just defended ourselves (which is defending the Right to be free).  The moral high ground.  

I do think V's actions where/are justified.  The "State" is far more of a killing machine than V.

[Guest]

Fistfull: MLKJr wasn't killed by the state.  He was killed by a criminal who was arrested and prosecuted for the crime.

Big difference and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that point: MLKJr's death wasn't grounds for general revolt and his followers (not to mention wife) wisely saw that.

Put it another way:

You're a Jew circa 1940 in the Warsaw Ghetto.  You can fight or you can get on a cattle car.  Which do you choose?

Or if you prefer, people are getting PUT on cattle cars.  Maybe not you, maybe your "type" isn't "targetted".  Yet.  Which path do you take?

[Matthew Carberry]

If it is clearly unsafe to speak out based on what's happened to others who have done so, it is not necessary to voluntarily stick your own head on the chopping block.  That's the time to hoist the Jolly Roger and start cutting throats.

And hoisting the Jolly Roger* and cutting throats won't lead you to the chopping block?  Violent revolutions may be proper at times, but they are certainly no way to avoid being "killed or disappeared."  The point is that either route will be dangerous to your health, but which is appropriate to the situation?  It seems to me that violent overthrow must, first, be morally justified; and second, enjoy popular support.  Otherwise, you're just having a temper tantrum that gets you, and the cause, in worse trouble.

Jim, MLK's approach worked.  He was killed, and it still worked.  If I remember right, PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES, as in more than one, were listening to the man.  His approach swayed public opinion.  Black Power violence would only have proved that Blacks were a dangerous race to be kept in their place by repression and occasional lynchings.

 

*the Jolly Roger is a symbol of either freelance piracy, or piracy in service of a hostile govt.  Either way, this is an odd symbol to use for the defense of one's rights.  Yes, I know, it comes from a well-known quotation.

fist,

Violent resistance doesn't need to have popular support.  It, especially if wildly successful or, contrariwise, over-brutally suppressed, can GALVANIZE popular support from those who would otherwise just meekly continue muddling along the fence.

And it always needs to be made clear that MLK and Ghandi's tactics only worked because of the relative civilization and moral tenor of the societies they were resisting.  Occasional brutality by govt. agents in the South or India does not equate to a Nazi, Khmer Rouge or Red China govt.  Non-violent resistance just makes it easier for those in power with no civilized moral code to sweep up the dissidents en masse at no danger to themselves and utterly (udderly ) cow the rest of the populace into submission.

[tyme]

The closest thing to terrorism I can possibly think of would be the Boston Tea Party, and that didn't involve kids being blown up in a pizzaria.

There was a lot of terrorism, but it gets glossed over in history books.  Revolutionaries (remember, they were a small minority... estimates suggest that 2/3 of the people were neutral or supported the Crown) harassed and committed property crimes (including vandalism and arson) against British supporters.

Violent overthrow is something to be seriously considered only after petition, protest and politics have failed.  Such violence is justified by necessity, not by what the other side is guilty of.

Political violence is never a strict necessity.  It is always possible to live in relative peace under the yoke of an oppressive government.  And then there's the option of non-violent influence...

I'm reading, and strongly recommend, Gene Sharp's Politics of Nonviolent Action part 2 - Methods of Nonviolent Action, isbn 0875580718.  It's in essence a catalogue of ways to exert political influence without resorting to violence.

[Perd Hapley]

tyme,

I'm glad to hear that claim again about terrorism in the American Revolution.  I'd like to know any specific incidents anyone can remember that were acts of violence against civilians who were not govt. officials.  It seems I've heard about such things, but can't remember where.  I'd also like to know if such things were endorsed or promoted by leaders of the movement.

 

Political violence is never a strict necessity.

I agree, and maybe I used the wrong word there.  Would you also agree that war is never a "last resort"?  In my opinion, the last resort is capitulation.

[Perd Hapley]

Jim,

I think we probably agree on this whole issue for the most part; we're probably just talking past each other.  Perhaps if I saw this V movie I'd have a better idea of what you mean.  

You're a Jew circa 1940 in the Warsaw Ghetto.  You can fight or you can get on a cattle car.  Which do you choose?

Or if you prefer, people are getting PUT on cattle cars.  Maybe not you, maybe your "type" isn't "targetted".  Yet.  Which path do you take?

Well, now we're talking about resisting an occupying military or a collaborationist government, so it's a different situation.  Seems like time for organized violent resistance, to me.  Even in Germany, a wise man named Bonhoffer was party to an assasination attempt on der Fuhrer.

Violent resistance doesn't need to have popular support.

Actually, I was talking about violent overthrow.  Not just resistance, but a toppling of the extant government.

[Strings]

So blackburn, feeling a desire to move past the awkward phase, are we?

[O.F.Fascist]

I saw the movie yesterday.

While there were a few things I disliked about the movie, I definately liked the overall message.

On the topic of the Civil War in America, here is my take on that.

Unlike the British who had no means with which to resist tryanny and thus became resigned to it, we Americans have the means and choose to fight it, and thus the Civil War.

[RevDisk]

http://community.livejournal.com/m15m/13483.html

Warning, do not click on link if you haven't seen the movie yet.   Nothing BUT spoilers.

[Iain]

On the topic of the Civil War in America, here is my take on that.

Unlike the British who had no means with which to resist tryanny and thus became resigned to it, we Americans have the means and choose to fight it, and thus the Civil War.

We had our own civil war, and it had something to do with resisting tyrannical authorities. Nobody likes civil wars. I've just been reading Beevor's 'The Spanish Civil War', some of the stuff in there reminds you that civil wars are far from civil, and in fact may be the furthest.