Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    10 Apr '13 21:49
    FARC is fighting for land reform in Colombia. They are also associated with the Cocaine trade. I find myself sympathetic to their cause. Are they justified in their demands and armed resistance to the government?
  2. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    12 Apr '13 12:32
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    FARC is fighting for land reform in Colombia. They are also associated with the Cocaine trade. I find myself sympathetic to their cause. Are they justified in their demands and armed resistance to the government?
    I'm sure you could give a little more detail as grounds for your debate.
    Your summary is rubbish.

    For example:
    The FARC represent the poor people of rural Colombia against:
    They oppose the economic depredations of the ruling bourgeoisie;
    They oppose the political influence of the U.S. in the internal affairs of Colombia (i.e. Plan Colombia);
    They're anti neo-imperialism;
    They're against the monopolization of natural resources by multinational corporations;
    They oppose the repressive violence from Colombian state and paramilitary forces against the civilian population.

    Then, before we continue, probably best explain that last little bit best...

    Now, I took the summary from Wiki and had to remove the "The FARC say that they..." part from each sentence. Why they hell was that included? Well, I presume it doesn't take a crash-course on understanding the media and lobby groups to get to grasps with it.
  3. 18 Apr '13 00:24
    I don't know enough about the situation in Columbia, but basically I support the right of an opposition to a government to use force when that government uses lethal force which cannot reasonably be sanctioned by law to remain in power. Obviously there's ambiguity there, because all governments use lethal force to maintain order. But lethal force to silence an opposition movement begets, and should beget, violent resistance.
  4. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    18 Apr '13 12:55
    I generally don't think that genuine reform can come from armed struggle. Movements which take power through militaristic means tend to transfer the hierarchical, command/control structure of the military apparatus that brought them to power into the subsequent society.

    Basically, the end will generally be consistent with the means employed, and a peaceful, democratic society cannot be built through violent and non-democratic means. Such means tend to produce hierarchical and dictatorial societies. We have seen this borne out numerous times throughout the world.
  5. 18 Apr '13 13:03
    No.
  6. 18 Apr '13 20:13
    Originally posted by rwingett
    I generally don't think that genuine reform can come from armed struggle. Movements which take power through militaristic means tend to transfer the hierarchical, command/control structure of the military apparatus that brought them to power into the subsequent society.

    Basically, the end will generally be consistent with the means employed, and a peace ...[text shortened]... cal and dictatorial societies. We have seen this borne out numerous times throughout the world.
    And they ultimately have to clamp down to fight off the counter-revolution. I do think it has to be a last resort.

    And this is bound to be controversial, but I question whether it was necessary in the American Revolution.
  7. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    22 Apr '13 01:29
    Speaking of land redistribution, Ive been reading up on Mao. He was OPPOSED to land redistribution and acknowledged the right to bear arms! He thought every person should carry a short spear.

    Landlords seem to be a common theme around the world, both oppressing the poor but entrenched extremely deeply and very difficult to fix.

    Maybe rent subsidies are the best way to handle the problem.
  8. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    22 Apr '13 01:31
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    No.
    So peasant farmers should continue to pay rich white criollos rent to farm their ancestral lands because the police say so?

    Im not down with that.
  9. 23 Apr '13 01:07
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    So peasant farmers should continue to pay rich white criollos rent to farm their ancestral lands because the police say so?

    Im not down with that.
    The question may not be whether the cause is justified so much as the means. Is or was Columbia at a point where non-violent attempts at change were hopeless or even dangerous? If so, then violent revolution might have been justified. But violence at best brings you to the point where you have power to protect yourself. It's not meaningful change in and of itself.
  10. 25 Apr '13 11:46
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    So peasant farmers should continue to pay rich white criollos rent to farm their ancestral lands because the police say so?

    Im not down with that.
    Somehow I doubt dealing drugs and kidnapping people is a solution to social injustice.
  11. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    25 Apr '13 22:45
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Somehow I doubt dealing drugs and kidnapping people is a solution to social injustice.
    Is FARC justified in their demands and armed resistance to the government?
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    25 Apr '13 23:34
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    The question may not be whether the cause is justified so much as the means. Is or was Columbia at a point where non-violent attempts at change were hopeless or even dangerous? If so, then violent revolution might have been justified. But violence at best brings you to the point where you have power to protect yourself. It's not meaningful change in and of itself.
    If somebody had mentioned that to Simon Bolivar, there wouldn't be a Columbia.
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    25 Apr '13 23:46
    Originally posted by rwingett
    I generally don't think that genuine reform can come from armed struggle. Movements which take power through militaristic means tend to transfer the hierarchical, command/control structure of the military apparatus that brought them to power into the subsequent society.

    Basically, the end will generally be consistent with the means employed, and a peace ...[text shortened]... cal and dictatorial societies. We have seen this borne out numerous times throughout the world.
    Asking oppressors nicely to please stop oppressing you hasn't been all that successful in history.
  14. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    28 Apr '13 14:08
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Asking oppressors nicely to please stop oppressing you hasn't been all that successful in history.
    Too often, though, today's liberators become tomorrow's oppressors. That is the nature of political revolutions. Any group which attempts to seize political power in order to impose change upon the whole of society beneath it, in a top-down fashion, will be compelled to compromise its principals in order to achieve and maintain political control. The state can never "wither away" if it is the instrument by which revolutionary gains are to be imposed and maintained.

    The "Iron Law of Oligarchy" tells us that any group which uses, or aspires to, state power, will, as it succeeds, come to resemble in character the groups it sought to displace. Political revolutions, therefore, are self-defeating. For this reason, the only type of revolution that can achieve its goals without compromising or corrupting its principles is one that does not make use of state power. A grass roots, social revolution that is implemented from the bottom-up, instead of being imposed from the top-down via state power. If people could get over their political fixation, they'd see that there are many promising developments in this regard around the world. Developments that certainly have a greater chance of making more of a change than FARC ever will.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    28 Apr '13 17:00
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Too often, though, today's liberators become tomorrow's oppressors. That is the nature of political revolutions. Any group which attempts to seize political power in order to impose change upon the whole of society beneath it, in a top-down fashion, will be compelled to compromise its principals in order to achieve and maintain political control. The ...[text shortened]... ents that certainly have a greater chance of making more of a change than FARC ever will.
    Try to implement such "promising developments" under a Hitler or Pol Pot.