I would say that undirected violence is always wrong -- If there's no link between the target and whatever circumstance has led to violent protest, then the violence is unjustified and only serves to generate fear. Although fear alone can has been shown to be an effective way to gain and hold power, I think we can agree that it is not the preferred path to victory, particularly for a movement that claims to be for good. It also tends to raise despots who may bend the momentum of the movement for their own benefit or goals after the original goal is achieved.

In my opinion, there's an escalation of response that is necessary to follow. People who have a voice in the government of their country have a responsibility to fight for change through the courts, at the voting booth, and using every peaceful means at their disposal. There can come a time, after it is clear that peaceful means are not just unheard, but ignored, when violence can become a reasonable response to the oppression. Up until that time, and continuing throughout whatever violent protest occurs, the movement must maintain course trying to effect change through the system as well; otherwise, they stand to lose whatever moral authority they have gained, and the story soon become about the physical fighting, rather than the cause.

One of the biggest problems with Brazil's protests is that it is unfocused.

It is a problem shared with most protesters, including the Occupy Wall Street or 99% protesters.

What SPECIFICALLY do the people want changed?

When I look at the news stories, I see bus prices (the issue that sparked the common people), I also see cries about the tax rate, public services, healthcare reform, educational reform, police reform, corruption in government, unemployment, and even protests on the availability of World Cup tickets.

What I do not see is a specific thing that needs to change. I do not see a clear and specific goal that can be met.

Usually this takes some articulate public speakers, not raging mobs.


Let's assume all the politicians got together and found a way to solve one, and only one, of the issues presented. Which one should that be? Should they raise taxes to drop the bus fare? Focus on one very specific aspect of government corruption? Should they get larger facilities for the World Cup? Should they implement a national healthcare mandate?

This is the problem with the protests today.

Abstract protests without a clear and precise goal does not get very far.

People are upset. We get that. There are a lot of problems in government. Everyone knows that. Now some smart people and charismatic leaders (not just angry people) need to sit down and figure out exactly what needs to change, exactly how to do it. They need to paint a picture that everyone can see. This is why protests don't work unless they have speakers like Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi who can communicate specifically what needs to change, communicate specifically how to enact the change, and rally the people from mindless mobs into a series needle-sharp protests on specific concrete issues.

Protesters must establish a clear articulation of the problem they want fixed.

That requires good education, witch IMO is why Brazil have been stuck forever.

Btw, I think you dont get the world cup thing..or I dont get what you understood. The rage is that Brazilians never wanted to host the cup. Too much money is expended (read stole, cause it is), while it should be expended on the country itself instead of "making the country look good to the internationals". Its the classic "all of suddem theres money to do billionaire investments", with all the problems we have in infrastructure: education, hospitals, floods.. Its a money making to the already rich ppl. I never saw a person in favor of Brazil hosting the cup, except on TV of course.

(I remember they where going to destroy one school to expand a car parking due it being near a cup stadium...dont remember how that ended..just to exemplify)

One of the biggest problems with Brazil's protests is that it is unfocused. ... Protesters must establish a clear articulation of the problem they want fixed.

That requires good education, witch IMO is why Brazil have been stuck forever.

According to some news reports there are nearly a quarter million people involved in the protests.

Are you suggesting that in the quarter million people, there are not even the few (perhaps five or ten) who are educated and also dynamic leaders?

I have higher hopes than that. My hunch is that just like the Occupy Wall Street movement in the US, and just like many other protests, the problem is not a lack of education. The problem more likely is difficulty getting key leaders in front of the mob and getting the mob's attention. Angry mobs don't like to listen to reason, even when it agrees with them.



All through history people have revolted. It is a thing humans do. The successful revolts -- including those that caused nations to overturn -- can all trace their success to a few key individuals. Generally they are charismatic, articulate, and intelligent. They can transform a mob into an organized mechanism for change.

As long as protesters remain lawless mobs that burn buildings and vehicles and otherwise cause problems to society, then of course the situation will degenerate.

If the protesters can find those key individuals and bring them to the front then non-violent change is not only possible, it is probable.

One of the biggest problems with Brazil's protests is that it is unfocused. ... Protesters must establish a clear articulation of the problem they want fixed.

That requires good education, witch IMO is why Brazil have been stuck forever.

According to some news reports there are nearly a quarter million people involved in the protests.

Are you suggesting that in the quarter million people, there are not even the few (perhaps five or ten) who are educated and also dynamic leaders?

I have higher hopes than that. My hunch is that just like the Occupy Wall Street movement in the US, and just like many other protests, the problem is not a lack of education. The problem more likely is difficulty getting key leaders in front of the mob and getting the mob's attention. Angry mobs don't like to listen to reason, even when it agrees with them.



All through history people have revolted. It is a thing humans do. The successful revolts -- including those that caused nations to overturn -- can all trace their success to a few key individuals. Generally they are charismatic, articulate, and intelligent. They can transform a mob into an organized mechanism for change.

As long as protesters remain lawless mobs that burn buildings and vehicles and otherwise cause problems to society, then of course the situation will degenerate.

If the protesters can find those key individuals and bring them to the front then non-violent change is not only possible, it is probable.

(As another side note, most protests happening are all non violent, most violence is coming from the police.)

The lawless ones are on the govern, making laws, making everyone miserable. Murders and robbers with law protection. They should be arrested (no exaggeration), do you think its possible to convince them to surrender out of moral speechs ? Its as silly as it sound. I dont think its possible to make then pull out if not by offering a worse option (taking them out by force/fear).

And even so, I dont think historical characters like Luther King, Ghandi, who else, with both charisma, leadershipness and whatever skills shows up easily.

Note that I dont think its ideal either, but I think non violent in that case is being too idealist/utopic.

ts as silly as it sound. I dont think its possible to make then pull out if not by offering a worse option (taking them out by force/fear).

And even so, I dont think historical characters like Luther King, Ghandi, who else, with both charisma, leadershipness and whatever skills shows up easily.

Note that I dont think its ideal either, but I think non violent in that case is being too idealist/utopic.

As long as a nonviolent option is available, use it.

I think non violent in that case is being too idealist/utopic.

What exactly does this mean? Are you suggesting that the mob should murder those in power? Or perhaps suggesting they burn down the capitol building? What does the cause gain by the burning of busses?

On one hand you say you want an end to corruption in government, you want the laws to be fair and you want them to be followed.
On the other hand you seem to be suggesting those same rules should not be followed by the mob, that they should induce fear through violence and force.

Unless you are planning a complete overthrow of the government (which seems foolish in the extreme) the only option is nonviolent protest. Even if that means the police forces murder hundreds of people in the streets to stop the nonviolent protests, you live in a country where people can protest, people can record it, report it around the globe, and the nonviolent protests will be heard much better than violent civil unrest.

Using violence in a protest is a statement that invalidates any other message you say. The same is true for the government. Every time someone uses violence they lose that protest and declare that they are willing to ignore basic human rights and reach for brute force. Do not be the one who turns to violence. If you want the world to see the corruption in Brazil's government, let them see the people demand peace and the government using violence, not the other way around.

Violence not only invalidates any other message you may have (and not only invalidate, but turn around), but it also gives a good justification to your rotten government to reply with even more excessive violence.

Which, if you look at the Turks last week, doesn't mean that staying peaceful is any better for your health.

Now of course, the problem is that there are not many options. All governments are rotten, so moving abroad does not work. Democracy also does not work. You can choose one incompetent cheating criminal over the other, it does not change a thing. Well, you can make it still worse, but not better...

Also, generally 80-90% of the population are stupid and (in case they go to elections at all) will elect what's worst for everybody anyway (a feedback loop that the socialists support by sabotaging the school system and keeping the next generation stupid).

It is a very sad thing to say but, protest of any knid does not work unless it gets violent.

CDN didn't work, Protests against Viatnam or Iraq didn't work. The Occupy movement didn't work.

Protests that got violent and did work / are working:
Womens Sufferage / Feminism, LA riots related to the beating of Rodney King, The UKs Poll Tax Riots, American Independance, Arab Spring, French Revolution.

I have no political motivation to get involved with any kind of politcal movement but it does seem to me that the only way that politcal protest works is when it boils over into something nasty and people take direct action.

Protests that got violent and did work / are working:
Womens Sufferage / Feminism, LA riots related to the beating of Rodney King, The UKs Poll Tax Riots, American Independance, Arab Spring, French Revolution.

The French revolution did "work", but it produced France's darkest age in history. Never before and never after have people suffered so much as during the century after the revolution. World War I was a trifle compared to this.

Maximilien de Robbespierre and Napoleon Buonaparte are two of the exaltant improvements that the French Revolution brought. Hundreds of thousands slaughtered on the guillotine (or millions, you can't be sure, but the piles of skulls in the Paris catacombs tell a story...), millions starved, and millions dead in senseless wars over decades.

It doesn't look much different if you consider the American independence war or the Arab Spring. Or, the anti-Apartheid move. People in South Africa still live in much worse conditions today than they did back then. Sure enough, they're "free"... but what is this freedom worth if you're murdered in the street by an urchin who has nothing to lose because he is starving.

When the people in power refuse to give up power, the ones who want change have to use violence.

As of right now peaceful protests are ignored, and eventually "swept away" by police.

In the United States, the Occupy Wall ST protests were ended by police sweeping away the camps and making mass arrests. Over in Europe, I'm reading of well trained riot police being used to clear out any kind of protestors any time they pop up.

The French revolution did "work", but it produced France's darkest age in history. Never before and never after have people suffered so much as during the century after the revolution. World War I was a trifle compared to this.

Maximilien de Robbespierre and Napoleon Buonaparte are two of the exaltant improvements that the French Revolution brought. Hundreds of thousands slaughtered on the guillotine (or millions, you can't be sure, but the piles of skulls in the Paris catacombs tell a story...), millions starved, and millions dead in senseless wars over decades.



It doesn't look much different if you consider the American independence war or the Arab Spring. Or, the anti-Apartheid move. People in South Africa still live in much worse conditions today than they did back then. Sure enough, they're "free"... but what is this freedom worth if you're murdered in the street by an urchin who has nothing to lose because he is starving.

This is Irrelevant. The violent protests worked and brought about change. The fact that the outcome was bad does not change the fact. Also I'm not totally sure why you include American independance in that list.

Don't get me wrong I do not advocate violence in any way but, I can think of a lot more situations where violent protests were successful than non - violent ones. I have never studied history or politics in great deal so maybe somebody else can throw up a few examples. The biggest example of a violent protest is War and the people who win a war get what they want.