an interesting article, about how the economic crisis in europe is breaking the social stability for the worst, and the nationalism rises on the population while the european union tries to become an economic federal state

http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/1289151-florence-murders-crisis-distills-its-poison

@lolo

Careful there calling me blind.

I agree with you on all these issues. I merely wanted to point out that casualties in all these changing systems have been quite low. Syria is quite bad, i agree, but it's nothing like a war, where for instance in Iraq a million people died after the US invasion.

Just putting these numbers in perspective, as this seemed to me to be the topic of this thread.

As for police and army refusing to attack civilians, that is what happened in Egypt pretty soon after the first protests broke out. So i'm not at all being idealistic here. Just stating facts. (If you want to read about my idealism, check the older threads where i discuss the money system with Vitaliy.)

@johnnym
and yet, even "little violence", means more violence.
and you must be blind to say that there hasn´t been any violence from the protestors,
do not see only what we you wish to see...

i´m mean
every conflict empowers the identities of those in conlfict, and if they are behaving in a mass way, then you shouldn´t expect much reflexion prior to action of them, meaning that even the slightest sign of frustration will end up must likely in violence, and then repression, and then a rise in the death chart.

In the arab region there has been 2 civil wars, one international and civil war, and several massacres in yemen, jordan and syria, so that means a rise in the violence...

even Ghandi, in probably the most peaceful of all the independence struggles end up murdered, and in a civil war of the british india, wich end up with two different countries that still have a conflict in cashemira, Pakistan and India, the muslim and the hindu countries

in the US (and europe, latinamerica, etc) there will be no systemic change, without a blood bath, only bandits to a body with aids

goldamn sachs, jp morgan, etc.
the financial people rule, not even the chuck testa democrats rule
so, even if we can expect less violence (in hystoric therms) from the "state stablishment", we should not expect that from the bourgeois, and their puppets, because humanity is unkown to the people that sees a consumer and not a person.

lol

@stonebat

how could you, that would be like saying the king of pop was a lier ;)

@lolo, I see what you are saying. Thank you again for your clear thoughts and insights into a really complex subject.

To be clear, I'm not saying AT ALL that the world is fixed, or good, or right. I just finished days of work on a pro-bono fundraising video for a hunger relief group (please, whoever thinks this is not a good idea, please don't bag on me for helping with a hunger relief video...).

I'm frequently mad about the state of things and I want things to get better. I've literally spent collective months of my like protesting and making a general nuisense of myself for causes I believe in. I, possibly naively, believe individuals can make a difference in the world.

But isn't it important from time to time, I'm asking, to say, "wow, we've improved in some ways"? We're physically damaging one and others bodies less than we used to. Isn't that part of the dream of making a better world over time? (yes, I know that sounds cheesy...)

@cosimo_bullo i hope you are right, but i don't think you are right. just because there are less wars, the world doesn't seem getting better.

would you agree with me that radical muslims have been taking over europe?

global warming international efforts have been miserable failures. read the news. dont read into green energy hopeful stories in the stock market.

read news about china's extreme nationalism.

u think theres no resource war? then why is usa invading other countries?

the research says the world is better place? oh really? http://www.bread.org/hunger/global/facts.html

"The world is facing a hunger crisis unlike anything it has seen in more than 50 years. 925 million people are hungry. Every day, almost 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes. That's one child every five seconds. There were 1.4 billion people in extreme poverty in 2005. The World Bank estimates that the spike in global food prices in 2008, followed by the global economic recession in 2009 and 2010 has pushed between 100-150 million people into poverty."

the food prices have been going up up up. the food price index made a new record in jan 2011, and it's expected to go up higher next year.


why do you think there was uprising in egypt early this year? they were fuking hungry.

@lolo - "i do not think that is good way of analysing things, been violence such a complex matter to analyse, you are probably going to end up having a more simple, therefore less real immpression, of what those statistics mean"

I can see how you would feel that way. And yet these recent studies pertain (as I understand) mainly to #1 on your chart, Direct Violence. I'm not at all suggesting that #2 or #3 are not valid. They are valid.

But for the sake of having a discussion based on the recent papers and based on physical violence from war and crime, I ask that you start another topic to discuss all three together. Otherwise this will get super convoluted and essentially meaningless except emotionally (which is also fine, but for another thread).

Seriously thank you though for caring to write and think about this!

@cosimo_bullo i do not think that is good way of analysing things, been violence such a complex matter to analyse, you are probably going to end up having a more simple, therefore less real immpression, of what those statistics mean

@stip - I think it's a good idea to start another thread on structural violence'. It is a good topic to explore but should not be lumped in here, as it diminishes, for me, the ability to talk about a specifically measurable thing, this huge decrease in classic violence.

@johnnym
nope, is not up to us,
not in this status quo,
we live in a chuk testa democracy...

and i´m not saying that we are useless..
what i´m saying is that going to war is a political decision, and normal people do not have any real political power to make those decisions.
you may call a mass movement something with a little of political power, but that power can be defined as the power to annoy those with real political power,
therefore you can defined that the little political power of a mass movement is no real political power

normal people do not choose anything in real political terms,
chuck testa democracy...

and if you do want to change the status quo, most likely real violence will rise.