Tom Ritchford
Aug 24, 2017 · 2 min read

How does a “non-violent revolution” actually take place if voting is meaningless? Can you give me an example of a non-violent revolution working?

I’m not trying to be contentious — I basically agree with you. I don’t see the terminally broken system being fixed at the ballot box either, but I am also deeply skeptical about the idea that Americans will try some sort of passive, non-violent rebellion and the US government will say, “Ah, you’re right — time to admit we were wrong and reform.”

My theory — the US will steadily descend into civil war, chaos and turmoil over the next few decades. It’s one of the reasons why I packed up and left forever.

After some thought, my best example of a non-violent revolution working is the Independence of India. I feel, however, that that example does not transfer to the United States. The Indian independence movement took almost a century to come to fruition, albeit in a slower age. More, they cleverly manipulated a weary UK population who had no interest in India and a weary occupying force who wanted to go back to Blighty.

Satyagraha relied on the basic decency of the British newspaper reader, who were revolted to hear about non-violent resisters being beaten, and this is a factor I feel is lost in the twenty first century entirely. More, it relied on tremendous discipline on the part of the protesters not to fight back, something I also believe is impossible today with such a fractured resistance group and with a society that glorifies weapons and violence.

And finally, it relied on a simple solution being always apparent to both sides — the British giving up and going home. But no such simple solution exists to the crisis of America.

The last time the US had a civil war, it killed one person in 50 — that would be about 7 million people today. I suspect the percentage rate would be less — medicine is better today, and even though much more violent weapons have been invented, the US government isn’t going to use flamethrowers or nuclear weapons on its own populace until the final extremity, if then. It would still mean millions dead — worth avoiding at any cost.

Looking to the future is a fool’s game, but the only hope I see for the US’s future without violence relies on the Democratic Party collapsing and being replaced by a truly progressive party with a charismatic leader that gets strong grassroots support from the lower 50% of society.

)
    Tom Ritchford

    Written by

    uk->at->ca->us->nl