Radicalism vs. Moderation?

[ShockV1.89]

When change occurs, there are usually a mix of people on the side that desires change. Some of them want gradual change over a period of time. Others want immediate change, and usually a complete change from what is the norm at the time.

 

Which do you agree with?

 

Do you believe that moderation is the right way? Should changes be made gradually, over time? An example would be the womens rights movement, or perhaps Ghandhis movement for Indian independence.

 

Or is radicalism the way to go? Should people push for instant results? Instead of changing things one piece at a time, should they all be changed in one big, sweeping reform? A few examples might be the French Revolution (which started moderate, but the radicals took over), or even the American Revolution (which was radical at the time).

 

Is a combination better? If so, should you have more radicalism? More moderation?

 

Are radicals actually more of a threat to the very movement they represent? An example would be the 9/11 attacks and Al-Qaeda. Radical, extremeist terrorists drop the towers, and instead of submitting to their demands, the US scattered them to the four winds.

 

Discuss. Relgion has the potential to come up in this thread, but please, please, keep it calm and civil.

[Eldritch]

I would say Moderation. Radicalism is dangerous - you can tell just by looking at the examples you gave:

 

The French Revolution ended up bloody, even if it started civil.

The American Revolution was an all out war with the most powerful nation on earth at the time.

The 9/11 attacks... very radical.

 

A person may easily adopt to change, but society does not, and it must be gradual to have a lasting effect.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

You might need to define exactly what is 'radical' and what is 'moderate'.

 

One interpertation could be how quickly the change occurs or is intented to occur.

 

Another interpertation is whether violence is directly introduced - by either party.

 

I'll use Ghandi's movement for Indian independance as an example...

 

I wouldn't catagorise Ghandi's movement as moderate because it happened over many years. This is true, but it wasn't Ghandi's prime objective. The fact is that the frankly ludicrous taxes being inflicted on Indian farmers by British landlords were killing many innocents on a daily bases.

(Yes, I am British. And this is but one of the things our nation is responsible for that I am not proud of...)

 

So, in a prefect world, Ghandi would have prefered the British rule over as quickly as possible. What he was NOT willing to do was to use violence as a means to achieve this end - which is a different matter.

 

Using violent means does NOT nessarily mean that you will achieve your objective any quicker. Of course this depends on the objective and the situation - but in many cases, it just gives the illusion of being the most direct and efficient way to tackle a problem...

 

This said, I agree that most of the time, the moderate approach (however exactly you define it) is usually the correct one, when viewed objctively and keeping the long-term effects clearly in mind.

 

However, when it's YOUR life that is being wrongfully oppressed, it's a lot to ask that you keep a level head about the long-term benefits of moderation...!

[SkinWalker]

Someone once said, "all progress began with an unpopular idea." I don't know if that's 100% true, but it seems consistently frequent in history.

 

One could argue that the abolitionist movement was very radical for its time, yet it was the seed for the civil rights movement (also viewed as radical in certain parts of the United States).

 

Prohibition was radical, and met with dismal failure, though the motives may have been good.

 

Genetic research is largely radical, and the jury is still out on whether it will be a benefit or hinderance to society.... though I strongly believe the good will outweigh the bad.

 

"Radical," it would seem, merely describes the degree of departure from the norm. It would, therefore, be the norm that should be evaluated in order to determine if the radicalist ideas associated with it are the correct course. Perhaps steady moderation is best for ideas like cloning and genetic research... but progress is the important factor.