Is it true that all revolutions/uprising could only be "resolved" with the backing of an armed force?

Upvote:3

I concur with @T.E.D; the question is a "no True Scotsman" bar bet.

That said, there is one counterexample:

When the US Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, this was a revolution. One goverment passed away and a new government was instituted without any use of force.

The only concievable "use of arms" was used to pacify a mob beseiging the delegates in Philadelphia. However (a) the existing civil government deployed police forces (and, if I recall correctly, booze) to defend the delegates who were forming the new government and (b) the police forces were there to prevent a riot, not to affect the revolution.

Upvote:4

This looks a lot like an invitation to a No True Scottsman argument. For example, I could point out that The Velvet Revolution, The People Power Revolution, The Tunisian Revolution, the Egyptian Revolultion of 2011, and many many others were all carried out almost entirely by non-violent means.

However, revolutions are messy things, with thousands of players and often very imperfect restults. So it wouldn't be real hard for a committed debater to pick apart each one and find a way to argue it away via the simple expedient of comparing it unfavorably to some of the more mushy words in his thesis (eg: "major", "threat", "support"), or in extreme cases by ammending the thesis slightly.

For example, in Tunisia I've seen it argued that the Ben Ali's hold on power was only due to the popular misconception that the USA was backing him. When a Wikileaks leak showed this wasn't the case, the uprising became possible. In fact you could "invalidate" every revoultion I listed above using a discovered lack of US or Soviet support for the regime as your hammer.

In other words, I disagree with that thesis because it is either invalid many times over (see my list above), or too mushy to be of much use in a predictive capacity.

More post

Search Posts

Related post