Antifa vs Anticom

[VGPolyglot]

bdbdbd said:

Mnementh said:

I disagree. The colonial power of Great Britain over India was removed by peaceful means. While the ANC fought with violence, the actual end of Apartheid was through peaceful means. The change in eastern europe, especially east germany came through peaceful means. The Franco-regime and the regime of Chiang Kai-shek ended peacefully (with their death). Sure, violence seems faster, but it tends to give power to the people willing to use violence. Also change through violence can cause more harm that is avoided.

You're looking at it from a different angle. VGPolyglot is suggesting there would be no centralised government, effectively leaving a power vacuum that nobody would fill, wheras you point out that someone else just filled the power vacuum that the old rule left behind. 

In a civil society, the government has a monopoly on violence (as in forcefully being able to maintain order if needed), in the form of police and military. He's suggesting that the existence of police and military by itself justifies violence against police and military.

I'm suggesting that those who support the status quo also support violence, as they support a system with a police force that keeps millions in jail, while there's a military that's present in over 100 countries and killing people in 7. Using violence to oppose this violence is valid, as that's the only way they're going to stop. They wouldn't have tanks, guns bombs, nukes and drones if they were just willing to go down peacefully. Obviously, there'll always be violence, but in a system that's based on cooperation instead of competition there should be much less of it.