Is there Justice thru Revolution?
The social consequences of a policy is a more adequate test of its morality. The ill-will of a group versus good-will based on the social consequences of the group’s actions. Politics is a twilight zone where ethics and technical means meet. What are the Group’s means used to attain a goal of social justice? The morality of a policy could be judged on the benefits of it’s long term affects, rather than it’s short term consequences.

Are the virtues of a revolution intrinsically evil if they achieve a long term goal of equality that can be firmly established? I am quick to say revolutions are immediately evil, and I also admit that with no haste that I condemn violence as it’s means.

A lot of folks may agree that violence expresses ill-will, and nonviolence good-will. To cite an example where nonviolence used as a coercive force caused harm is during World War Two. The Allies blockaded goods to the German People, causing German children harm thru Mal-nourishment, and the same could be said today as the United States blockades goods to Iran causing food shortages to the innocent populace. Another example would be when Gandhi boycotted British Cotton causing  Mal-nourishment in the children of Manchester. I am saying there is no firm, strong, and absolute line demarcating the social reward between using violence or nonviolence as a tool for good. It’s very blurry. The examples above demonstrate that it is impossible to coerce a group without damaging the lives and property or harming the innocent by trying to stop the guilty.

On an individual human level good-will is intrinsically good, as in respecting the lives and interests of others. At a human level, violence is seen as intrinsically evil to harm others. It’s easy to determine. It’s good to trust your neighbor, preserve life, and to tell the the truth. Personal Morality is seen with ease.

I am not sure if any moral value is absolute within a society. Every group action incites competition between values. Groups seem to believe as if ‘the end justify the means.’ A culture may believe in the sanctity of life as a moral good intrinsically, but kill a criminal who murdered someone. They send him to fry in the electric chair, to deter others from killing. “THAT’S KINDA NUTS,” ted thinks.

I guess the difference between folks is where their loyalties lie. Is your loyalty to the group or to the individual? Do you assign moral value to the actions in your group, and not the behavior of it’s individual members? Or do you assign individual morality and personify it to the actions of your group? Deceiving one’s self that your individual ethics can even be realistically applied to your social class? All this is an illusion. Insinuating the ideal of personal morality to the behavior of your group is self-deception.

Motives and Objectives do not necessarily guarantee the validity of the methods and means to achieve social justice. What are the political objectives of establishing Justice thru the use of Violence? Revolutions are not pretty, nor easy. When the wealthy and the poor join in a common cause seems more politically intelligent. A lot of the time people rally around a FLAG, which is a quick and simple metaphor for unity. Bizarre.

Oh Lord, wouldn’t it be great if the rich and the poor rallied together underneath a FLAG OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUALITY? Man, it seems like I dream and wake in a delusional hope for that sort of world. I always tell my dog, named Jigs, when I EAT MY MEAL IN FRONT OF HER, to KEEP THE DREAM ALIVE THAT SHE’LL GET TO EAT HUMAN FOOD AND NOT HER DOG CHOW, BUT I KNOW SHE WOULD BE LUCKY TO LICK THE TASTE OFF OF MY EMPTY PLATE. “KEEP THE DREAM ALIVE, JIGS!” (yeah, and the audience recoils in horror.) I’m like my dog, believing in a delusional hope of all people binding together UNDER A FLAG FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE. And that FLAG WOULD CONSIST OF EVERY NUANCE OF COLOR, LIGHT, AND EVERY GRADATION OF GREY THAT A HUMAN EYE CAN PERCEIVE. So I ask, “HOW HUNGRY IS EVERYONE?”

So much for Equality being achieved thru a violent revolution. I’m gonna throw that out the window with the kitchen sink. If a revolution for equality gained power, could it maintain such a world once it was established? If that could be done, maybe the means by which it occurred might be able to be forgiven. I wish that everyone had long lasting justice.

People get bribed by the lure of promised benefits of a cause, only to discover that the cause doesn’t succeed once in power. They just find out that the CAUSE LEFT THEM, ‘HOLDING THE BAG OF STOLEN LOOT.’ Bribed to a Cause Before Achieving the Rewards of Power. I do not see how there can be a unity of cause among folks, because each person performs a different function is society. There are limitations to the goodness in human nature. Education cannot thwart and completely destroy human nature. The weakness in human nature causes our social injustice. It is possible to limit the unequal rewards to those in power, but cannot prevent them from becoming a SYMBOL OF INEQUALITY.

IS IT ALL A NOBLE TRAGEDY SLAMMING SHUT THE GATES OF MERCY ON HUMANITY? I’ve heard it’s a dog eat dog world ‘out there.’ But I’ve never seen my dog eat another dog, she just eats dog chow, and licks my empty plate, keeping the dream alive…..

maybe talkin bout revolution and dog chow… audio file only