I'd like to start out by saying that the upcoming Star Wars film trailer (Rogue One) was released recently. — darthbarracuda

Awesome. I wasn't aware.

But in real life, when is political insurgency/revolution acceptable? From an initial observation, it would seem as though it is only acceptable so long as you agree with the insurgency. Of course the American colonists are seen as heroes, because ultimately they won. Had the colonists not won against the British Empire, might we see them as treacherous villains? History is written by the victor, as they say. — darthbarracuda

That's moral relativism. I think that it's true, in a sense, or at least that it brings out or emphasises some truth which other ethical theories seem to overlook or neglect. It can be difficult, if not impossible, to look at these issues from an objective viewpoint - a term which seems like an oxymoron. I hold certain strongly held moral beliefs which I might be tempted to say transcend judgement and represent the truth, but I don't know how I'd go about demonstrating that, and in any case, I don't think that it'd be necessary to do so. Oftentimes our judgement alone seems sufficient.

In the bubble of the victorious and their admirers, the victorious are heroes, or may as well be for all the difference it'd make. But outside that bubble, whether it be objectivity or just a different subjective bubble, that is not the case. Of course, what one declares to be acceptable typically accords with what one judges to be acceptable - and that is no coincidence. The question is, can they - we - be mistaken? Some views certainly seem to me to be mistaken, but is that enough? At the very least, there are views that I find disagreeable - condemnable even. If enough of us feel the same way, then we could collectively do something about it, like make it socially unacceptable or even against the law. Hopefully, when this happens, we're doing the right thing, but there's no guarantee that it is. Were the Jim Crow laws right? I don't think they ever were, even though they may have been right in the eyes of many at the time.

These things are, on the face of it, meta-ethical considerations. We can still discuss and debate normative ethical issues, regardless. For example, we can still argue over whether the French revolution was good or bad (although I don't think that it's as black and white as that). To give another example, I think that the Syrian uprising, at least to the extent that it was non-violent, was justified, because I think that Assad is a tyrant who deserves to be overthrown and replaced with someone or something better.

The ins and outs are more difficult to arrive at a conclusion, but the Gulags were bad, as were the atrocities committed under the rule of the Tsars, and I'm repulsed by the murder or "collateral damage" of innocent civilians.

At what point does a political revolutionary, a "patriot", become a "terrorist"? — darthbarracuda

Revolution activity is, presumably, different than terrorist activity.

A revolutionary activity might involve calling in the police of a given city and convince them that the Revolution is in their best interest. A revolutionary activity might involve carrying out attacks against the armed forces of the state.

A terrorist attack, on the other hand, might involve a series of bomb attacks on police stations that serve to deliver the message to the people that the police can not protect themselves, let alone the people Terror is intended to fracture the society as a whole, indiscriminately. Killing the head of the secret police might be an appropriate revolutionary act, while killing a woman who was shopping for food would be more a terrorist attack.

Revolutionary acts are designed to degrade the effectiveness of the regime by destroying specific parts of the government. Terrorist acts are designed to degrade the life of people in general.

Revolutionary acts are designed to degrade the effectiveness of the regime by destroying specific parts of the government. Terrorist acts are designed to degrade the life of people in general. — Bitter Crank

This seems like an excellent point. To a certain degree, governments and the media can twist the image of reality to suit their needs, so that revolutionaries look like terrorists, and terrorists look like revolutionaries. Ultimately I think the best indicator of right/wrong is what you personally feel in your heart.

Revolutionary acts are designed to degrade the effectiveness of the regime by destroying specific parts of the government. Terrorist acts are designed to degrade the life of people in general. — Bitter Crank

To a state, these two are indistinguishable. Their primary concern is any challenge to their monopoly of violence (and ideology), and so their monopoly of sovereignty. To the Syrian government all groups are terrorist (no matter if they're Islamic fascists or pro-Western representative democracy).

'Terrorist' then becomes a political term, in that its use is fraught with the perspective and interests of its speaker.

But in real life, when is political insurgency/revolution acceptable? From an initial observation, it would seem as though it is only acceptable so long as you agree with the insurgency. Of course the American colonists are seen as heroes, because ultimately they won. Had the colonists not won against the British Empire, might we see them as treacherous villains? History is written by the victor, as they say. — darthbarracuda

Revolution is always a historical matter. In non-revolutionary times, there is of course the wide buffet of possible political identifications, but why a sizeable chunk of the population takes on a particular revolutionary view under some organized political form says more about the historical crisis and that social body than anything else. People aren't convinced into revolutions through intellectual moral deliberation, but because the possibility of a revolutionary alternative has been recognized as a necessity. A transition from possibility to necessity, due to the particular intractability of a systemic crisis. Whatever the ruling ideology and infrastructural organization/regulation of social life, what's important is that it's seen to be incapable of solving a systemic issue without undoing its basic logic and assumptions.

People launch attacks at it all the time, but a revolutionary attack is a conscious, politically organized collectivity with revolutionary objectives. 'Revolution', in this sense, would be the overthrow and attempt to engineer or redirect the basic social relations of society. So, I'd say if you're looking for a substantive classification and separation of 'terrorist' and 'revolutionary', it would be along these lines.

Perhaps we need a general list of values that a group of revolutionaries need to be fighting for in order for them to be seen as morally justified. Some suggestions might be the pursuit of liberty, universal equality, a right to live, etc. "Western", "liberal" values found in the American Constitution and those of other countries. — darthbarracuda

I think you answer your own question here.

Who wins, gets to be on the right side.

Sorry, but that's how history goes.

Think about it: what if the American revolution had squashed right before it actually got started?

You could possibly be in such a dire situation like Canada. Oh the horror, the horror...

You're so much better now than being part of the British Commonwealth. And having the Queen as the figurehead leader of the state.

To answer your first question (if you are ...), I am a Blade Runner fan, not Star Wars.

To answer your second question (when is ...), I would have to guess that when over half of the Body Politic is in disagreement with the government, yet the government has somehow managed to hold sway with power over them, THEN the people are justified to revolt in rebellion.

This is simply a corollary to the definition of tyranny. When is tyranny? Whenever a minority has power over the majority.

Exactly right ... just like Canada ... the horror !!

Just like Australia ... the greater horror !!

Just like New Zealand ... .

In a revolution common people risk theirs and their loved one's lives.

Masses live in their small worlds. They are mostly concerned with their own and their family's safety and comfort. Only when their pain due to injustice/repression becomes too deep, then out of their deep frustrations they rise to confront the forces of enforcement.

We all have different ideas and morality. In accordance with these, people tend to use means available in small groups to start with. It takes time for leaders with courage and vision to rise up out of the chaos. Then revolutions tends to take cohesive actions.

To me, these masses fighting for their rights are the heroes, whether they win or loose. Some times, it takes more than one try, spread over years or even centuries. But in the end, people's will wins.

Rebellions effected out of greed for power or wealth are not revolutions. The masses do not participate knowingly in these.

To quote a revolutionary...

Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.