Is violence the only answer

[nightazday]

if its upon the selfish and sadistic than I kind of agree with you. But most people in history are usually ignorant, misguided, or you know, just sheep

is it a moral crime to attack someone for not knowing that much? is it hypocrisy to attack those of right to oppose your ideas knowing full well that they do the same for the left?

do ends justify the means?

[commyrebel]

If its for a revolution its completely fine for people must die for the revolution to work. If its because your just pissed at them then no for nothing comes from it.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Of course we'd rather it was peaceful, but pacifism has proven itself a self-harming and historically insignificant phenomina.

The bougioisie will never give up their weath and privilege without struggle. I don't even think violence is something to shy away from. Capitalism was established with violence and is inherently violent, massacring thousands of people everyday through famine, disease and poverty!

Faced with the exploitation involved the capitalism, its barbarity and alienation, I applaud workers struggles in fighting back utilising all methods availbale to them.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'm trying to approach things lately with an excessively harsh skepticism. Universal claims of truth are difficult to justify. Non-violence is preferable to violence, obviously, but violence can be justified in defense as long as it is proportional to the offenses. If a police officer arrests an individual with racist motivations, killing him isn't exactly proportional to the nature of his offenses. Justice applies to enemies.

The idea being revolutionary action is that society requires it to achieve certain reforms. I'm not against such action by default, but I'm not entirely convinced by the arguments from necessity. It's difficult to really see where Marx is coming from in modern times because democratic mechanisms are making violence less and less necessary. Even with capitalist democracy, people have considerably more voice than they used to have.

A non-violent revolution being preferable to a violent one probably isn't just if you are considering that avenue. A non-violent revolution speaks out against violence, in principle, because it is unfavorable. However, when revolutionaries are told to forgo action against attackers, that is unfair to them. Hippies and revolutionaries adopted pacifism from an admiration for ideals. Ideals at the expense of those who hold them is not a particularly enlightened view of morality.

It's an interesting notion that "violence is wrong" is a premise that should still apply even when attacked. Presumably because "if we attacked someone, we would want them to refrain from fighting back." Of course, society adopts values based on what serves the interests and needs of the majority. The premise "violence is wrong" serves our interests most of the time. Because it does not in cases of harm, we qualify it by allowing "self-defense." The advocating of self-defense over complete non-violence is better for society.

It's basic common sense. I was a pacifist when I was around 15 mainly because I admired MLK. I didn't have a particularly enlightened view (not that I do now) on matters of morality.

Pacifism is useful to gain sympathy for a movement. If you are seen defending yourself, the media can spin things. Unfortunately, it makes little difference these days. The media spins things so much with notions of "justified' violence that pacifism is becoming more and more impractical.

[nightazday]

I'm trying to approach things lately with an excessively harsh skepticism. Universal claims of truth are difficult to justify. Non-violence is preferable to violence, obviously, but violence can be justified in defense as long as it is proportional to the offenses. If a police officer arrests an individual with racist motivations, killing him isn't exactly proportional to the nature of his offenses. Justice applies to enemies.

The idea being revolutionary action is that society requires it to achieve certain reforms. I'm not against such action by default, but I'm not entirely convinced by the arguments from necessity. It's difficult to really see where Marx is coming from in modern times because democratic mechanisms are making violence less and less necessary. Even with capitalist democracy, people have considerably more voice than they used to have.

A non-violent revolution being preferable to a violent one probably isn't just if you are considering that avenue. A non-violent revolution speaks out against violence, in principle, because it is unfavorable. However, when revolutionaries are told to forgo action against attackers, that is unfair to them. Hippies and revolutionaries adopted pacifism from an admiration for ideals. Ideals at the expense of those who hold them is not a particularly enlightened view of morality.

It's an interesting notion that "violence is wrong" is a premise that should still apply even when attacked. Presumably because "if we attacked someone, we would want them to refrain from fighting back." Of course, society adopts values based on what serves the interests and needs of the majority. The premise "violence is wrong" serves our interests most of the time. Because it does not in cases of harm, we qualify it by allowing "self-defense." The advocating of self-defense over complete non-violence is better for society.

It's basic common sense. I was a pacifist when I was around 15 mainly because I admired MLK. I didn't have a particularly enlightened view (not that I do now) on matters of morality.

Pacifism is useful to gain sympathy for a movement. If you are seen defending yourself, the media can spin things. Unfortunately, it makes little difference these days. The media spins things so much with notions of "justified' violence that pacifism is becoming more and more impractical.


I agree that violence in self-defense is necessary if not common sense but at times I believe the pursuit and destruction of an "evil being" is the type of close-minded thinking you expect from the right-wing and can easily be twisted

[robbo203]

To set out deliberately to bring about a social revolution through violence is completely dumb and quite unnecessary. Anyone who imagines they can take on the full might of the state these days is living in a dreamworld. Violence generates violence and it also generates anti-democratic attributes like authoritarianism and hierarchy which impede the growth of socialist consciousness. We can achieve what we want peacefully. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand what is required for a social revolution to happen. The process of building mass understanding and support for socialism/communism will inevitably alter the whole climate of opinion making it far more difficult for the state to resort to violence (every state needs legitimacy in the first place in ordere to function at all). The collapse of state capitalism in the Eastern Bloc was carried out relatively peacefully by people withdrawing their consent to be governed by the then existing regimes. So to argue violence is necessary is both factually incorrect and theoretically dubious

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's basic common sense. I was a pacifist when I was around 15 mainly because I admired MLK. I didn't have a particularly enlightened view (not that I do now) on matters of morality.


Define "pacifism."

As I said before in another recent thread, MLK recognized that extra-legal struggles are necessary (and his emphasis on this is why I admire him): civil disobedience, illegal strike action, illegal workplace occupations, and the certainly illegal "bossnappings" that we've seen in France.


Violence generates violence and it also generates anti-democratic attributes like authoritarianism and hierarchy

The extra-legal examples above require discipline ("authoritarianism") and centralized unity ("hierarchy") for them to be effective.

[robbo203]

The extra-legal examples above require discipline ("authoritarianism") and centralized unity ("hierarchy") for them to be effective.

Only in the minds of those who advocate authoritarian hierarchy! I dont

[Die Neue Zeit]

Just read all about the failures of modern, overly decentralized "social movements" inspired by general spontaneism, as well as the failures of NGO fetishism inspired by that specific form of spontaneism known as organizational defeatism, or stikhiinyi in the Russian:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/fetishizing-decentralized-social-t99349/index.html

[robbo203]

Just read all about the failures of modern, overly decentralized "social movements" inspired by general spontaneism, as well as the failures of NGO fetishism inspired by that specific form of spontaneism known as organizational defeatism, or stikhiinyi in the Russian:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/fetishizing-decentralized-social-t99349/index.html




I think this is misreading my position. Opposition to authoritarian hierarchical organisation does not necessarily entail spontaneity. it is both possible and desirable to have democratic non hierarchical organisation and unity though a degree of spontaneity is welcome too

[Black Sheep]

It's an interesting notion that "violence is wrong" is a premise that should still apply even when attacked. Presumably because "if we attacked someone, we would want them to refrain from fighting back." Of course, society adopts values based on what serves the interests and needs of the majority. The premise "violence is wrong" serves our interests most of the time. Because it does not in cases of harm, we qualify it by allowing "self-defense." The advocating of self-defense over complete non-violence is better for society.That could be an outcome of the evolutionary benefits of altruism (hope i mnot derailing the thread too much).
When having 2 individuals of the same species,the most succesfull eventual strategy one could adopt, when having to choose from AG(ressive) and DEF(ensive),is to always start with DEF, and pay back with AG for every AG of your enemy.

Statistically,this system of default altruism but with a guaranteed counterattack for every aggression of your enemy is the most stable and with the most advantage.
So you could say that a default pacifism, but without the 'turn the other cheek' crap would do the job.

On the other hand, a dogmatic attachment to non-violence would drive the individual extinct rather quickly.

[robbo203]

That could be an outcome of the evolutionary benefits of altruism (hope i mnot derailing the thread too much).
When having 2 individuals of the same species,the most succesfull eventual strategy one could adopt, when having to choose from AG(ressive) and DEF(ensive),is to always start with DEF, and pay back with AG for every AG of your enemy.

Statistically,this system of default altruism but with a guaranteed counterattack for every aggression of your enemy is the most stable and with the most advantage.
So you could say that a default pacifism, but without the 'turn the other cheek' crap would do the job.

On the other hand, a dogmatic attachment to non-violence would drive the individual extinct rather quickly.


I think this is exactly right and empirical evidence relating to game theory (notably the "prisoners dilemma) demonstrates. In political parlance it is summed up in the phrase "peacefully if we can, violently if we must". You start out with a presumption that the social revolution will be accomplished peacefully. Indeed, the precondition of such a revolution - mass understanding of socialism and the concommitant spread of democratic values- makes a generally peaceful revolution far more like than a violent one (as I keep on pointing out to doubters - look what happened when state capitalism was overthrown in Eastern Europe; it was a largely peaceful process). However we must allow, and be prepared, for hypothetical possibility of violence which is why what you say is spot on...

[bruno]

If you want people listen you, you must take a gun in your hands. Violence is essential.

[Hoxhaist]

action without a vanguard is unlikely because action gets paralyzed by over-deliberation

[robbo203]

If you want people listen you, you must take a gun in your hands. Violence is essential.


Duh. And so if the other person has got a gun in his or her hand where does that leave you? One of you are going to lose your life and what precisely have you achieved. Sod all

If people are only going to listen to you if you have got a gun in your hand then what does that say about what you have to say? If you have to back it up by force then it cant really be worth saying

Youve been looking at too many Westerns I think

[Bitter Ashes]

If you want people listen you, you must take a gun in your hands. Violence is essential.
Good grief Bruno.
That is probably the most scary thing I've ever heard. In case you havent noticed, the weapons are in the hands of those who follow the orders of the bourgeois. Does that mean you should listen to them right now?
This kind of "might makes right" attitude is never right, no matter who does it.

[teenagebricks]

If you want people listen you, you must take a gun in your hands. Violence is essential.
Velvet Revolution? Probably a bad example but it is an example nonetheless because essentially you are saying there is no such thing as a nonviolent revolution. If violence is always necessary I think I will just go live in a cave by myself.

[redSHARP]

i put no, but most of the time, its usually the best answer.

[bruno]

Duh. And so if the other person has got a gun in his or her hand where does that leave you? One of you are going to lose your life and what precisely have you achieved. Sod all

If people are only going to listen to you if you have got a gun in your hand then what does that say about what you have to say? If you have to back it up by force then it cant really be worth saying

Youve been looking at too many Westerns I think

What is "duh"? Sorry I'm bad in English.

I don't want to say that I want to use "the gun" against people.
My enemies (or I can say "our enemies") are capitalist states (capitalism), their army and their police. My enemies already take a gun in their hands. So, people listen them. People obey "the power".

[Bitter Ashes]

Anyway, before 99 Luftballons drift over the Berlin Wall...

This is a class war. Wars are won by forcing the enemy to see that if they continue fighting they will be destroyed. They are not won by seeking out and destroying every enemy. No war has ever been won on attricion allone. Battles, yes, wars, no.

This is particualy true when you actualy examine the nature of the term "enemy". What is an enemy? For us, it's those who withhold the means of production and in turn withold a basic standard of living. When do they cease to be an enemy? When they cease to hold the means of production and cease to withhold our very reasonable demands.

Now, there is numerous ways to get this sorted and it'll probably be a wide variety of of methods that are needed to implement it. Only when threatened with violent retribution is violence a moraly correct option and if approached correctly by exploring other methods first, you'll be suprised about just how few will actualy physically fight for a system that is inheritantly wrong, that they do not benefit from, if they are given the opportunity to be welcomed into a society that is not only moraly correct, but also benefits them.

Socialism is something for all people. If you attack those who you need not attack then all you do is strengthen the reactionary's forces. Because, for each "enemy" you kill, you will create an enemy of thier siblings and friends and parents and children. Those people will never forgive you for taking away thier friend/family member.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

If we are speaking in terms of change than this the way I see it.In democratic society of sorts(capitalist and others as long it's not a totaltarian dictatorsip) than you can use violence or peace,usualy peace is better for popular support.In a totaltarian dictatorship violence is the only way.

[Idealism]

I think what is truly more important is having the will of the majority of people on your side. So if you have literally millions of people you could call general strike and essentially shut down the capitalist state. People say that the "state's army and police" are going to come after you, but if you truly have the people on your side, the army will be less than half of what it is now, same with the police. Though as many of us realize, this is (most of the time) unrealistic, and because of such may need violent means. Though my view on the use of violence is that if you do not have the will of the people, you are nothing but a ideologic coup, forcing your unwanted will upon everyone. So i voted "depends".

[robbo203]

What is "duh"? Sorry I'm bad in English.

I don't want to say that I want to use "the gun" against people.
My enemies (or I can say "our enemies") are capitalist states (capitalism), their army and their police. My enemies already take a gun in their hands. So, people listen them. People obey "the power".

So let me get this right. You dont want to use the gun against "the people" but you dont mind using it against capitalist states. Is that what you are saying? If so it is simply suicidal. You will lose your life for no good purpose.

People obey the powers-that-be, certainly, but at the end of the day it is we, the people, the workers who give, them that power in the first place (and who by that token can also take it away). Every state has to seek some form of legitmacy. In other words it has to have the support of the people in order to properly function. No state can survive very long without some degree of popular support. Why do you think dictorships constantly need to feed the poluation with propaganda? When the populations of eastern Europe withdrew their support for the state capitalist regimes ruling over them, the latter collapsed one by one and relatively peacefully.

Power is not a one way thing. What is needed is a change in atitudes in or social outlook. When a majority understand and want socialism there will be no need to resort to violence anyway - certainly not as a deliberate strategy. Violence implies that the conditions for changing society are not yet ripe and that if, by some remote chance violence were to succeed, what that would mean is that the people who had successfully organised this violence, would in turn become a new oppressive ruling class. History is littered with examples of this -sadly

[Stranger Than Paradise]

If we are speaking in terms of change than this the way I see it.In democratic society of sorts(capitalist and others as long it's not a totaltarian dictatorsip) than you can use violence or peace,usualy peace is better for popular support.In a totaltarian dictatorship violence is the only way.

Well that's what they call it. Your right about gaining support. Peaceful methods and only resort to violence in self defence and at the time of revolution. This way we would gain more support.