Violence?

[Lyev]

I was just wondering what people's positions were on violence/pacifism. I understand that violence is sometimes necessary. For example, I agree with Bertrand Russell's relative pacifism against Hitler and I realise a violent revolution against oppression can usually be justified.

However I believe violence and killing should be avoided at all costs and it's not like nothing is ever achieved by nonviolence, as some people argue. Think of Gandhi.

A few other questions are- 'When does the end justify the means?' Also- 'When is violent intervention needed, and to what extent?' I ask this question because sometimes I believe when you fight fire with fire you're no better than your foe and therefore your reason for fighting has been compromised.

If anyone knows of any relevant examples that would cool and I know this is a complex issue so thanks for any replies.


By the way I couldn't work out how to put a poll in, to see what people's views were.:confused:

[yuon]

If nothing else, self defence is always justified. (Pacifist anarchists claim that any violence is enforcing a person's will on another, even if in self defence. I reject this line of argument, though acknowledge that it is compatible with anarchist thought.)

Where does self defence end? Well, it is generally accepted that the state is continually using, or threatening, violence against all who cross it. (That's the only way a state could survive. If it didn't punish those who didn't pay taxes, who would pay taxes?) As such, revolution against the state, and implicitly those who represent the state, is, in fact, self defence.

Indeed, I would further that claim to include, not just politicians, top military and police chiefs, and top bureaucrats, but also, top CEOs and similar. Top business chiefs are also implicitly using violence. If you act against their interests (generally the interests of a company), they will not hesitate to use the full power of the state against you.

As such, they threaten violence; violence which they can bring to bear very easily, it isn't an empty threat.

Where a threat exists that is meaningful, and dangerous, and likely to be carried out, then, using violence to defend oneself is allowed and recognised.

To claim what is rightfully yours (though, it isn't yours according to capitalist logic), you are required to defend yourself against violence which will be levelled against you by those who would claim that what they stole is actually theirs.

Fuck them. I say hang them if they get in the way.

[Ned Flanders]

I think apathy towards oppression and injustice is far worse than violent means against exploiters and oppressors.

[Il Medico]

Violence is by all mean the last resort. Only to be used in the most extreme circumstances, after all other options have been exhausted. That said, the conditions created by the class system and class oppression are exactly that. Class violence however can not just be random acts of terrorism, it can't be focoism, it can't be vanguardism. Rather it has to be a mass movement of the proletariat in revolution. The bourgeois and their supporters will not reliquish power without armed confrontation. For the working class to free themsevles they must first do what is necessary. In this case, and perhaps this case alone, the ends justify the means.

[New Tet]

I was just wondering what people's positions were on violence/pacifism. I understand that violence is sometimes necessary. For example, I agree with Bertrand Russell's relative pacifism against Hitler and I realise a violent revolution against oppression can usually be justified.

However I believe violence and killing should be avoided at all costs and it's not like nothing is ever achieved by nonviolence, as some people argue. Think of Gandhi.

A few other questions are- 'When does the end justify the means?' Also- 'When is violent intervention needed, and to what extent?' I ask this question because sometimes I believe when you fight fire with fire you're no better than your foe and therefore your reason for fighting has been compromised.

If anyone knows of any relevant examples that would cool and I know this is a complex issue so thanks for any replies.


By the way I couldn't work out how to put a poll in, to see what people's views were.:confused:

First of all, if one intends to win a struggle involving people without the use of violence, one must avoid objectifying one's opponent. The opposites of objectification are, loosely, empathy and compassion.

Violence is a way of giving in to the objectification of your opponent. We cave in, we surrender when he/she becomes an object in our minds--undeserving of empathy or compassion; it becomes easier for us to inflict actual physical harm and even death to them.

I think MLK or Ghandi said that...Or maybe Fromm...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Violence is a means to an end. Whether it is appropriate or inappropriate depends on the circumstances. Pacifists and the like love to muddy the waters but it really is that simple, at least conceptually.

[Hit The North]

Violence is a means to an end. Whether it is appropriate or inappropriate depends on the circumstances.

And also depends on the politics of whomever is making the judgement.

[RotStern]

Violence is always an option in my opinion.
Ghandi was damn lucky that he wasn't rebelling against a country like France.
France would of labeled Ghandi a terrorist and shot them to pieces. \
This goes even with the states.
Non-violence would never work in America they would shoot you after labeling you a terrorist. :(

[Hit The North]

However I believe violence and killing should be avoided at all costs and it's not like nothing is ever achieved by nonviolence, as some people argue. Think of Gandhi.


In the fight for Indian independence from the British Empire, the British were extremely violent. I'd rather send people out, ready to defend themselves, than to submit to our enemy's boot.


By the way I couldn't work out how to put a poll in, to see what people's views were.:confused:


PM me with your voting options and I'll add a poll for ya. :)

[Sarah Palin]

I am pro-violence every minute that capitalism exists. I am anti violence every minute that communism exists.

[Durruti's Ghost]

If violence can be avoided, it should be, whether it is justifiable or not. For example, if someone is attacking you with a knife, you would be justified in shooting to kill; however, it would be better to shoot to disable, to avoid doing permanent injury if possible. In the same way, while violence against the capitalist state is basically always justified, it should be avoided where possible.

[Lyev]

I am pro-violence every minute that capitalism exists. I am anti violence every minute that communism exists.

Couldn't agree more, that's my thoughts exactly.



Violence is a way of giving in to the objectification of your opponent. We cave in, we surrender when he/she becomes an object in our minds--undeserving of empathy or compassion; it becomes easier for us to inflict actual physical harm and even death to them.

I think MLK or Ghandi said that...Or maybe Fromm...

And this is why I'm a pacifist, because I think extreme violence, ie. killing, is practically impossible without detaching yourself from humanity a bit and if you're not fighting for humanity anymore, what are you fighting for?

[Vargha Poralli]

In the fight for Indian independence from the British Empire, the British were extremely violent.

That violent was directed against Indians by --- Indians themselves. Only the commands would b given by the British Officers many in the lower ranks are filled by Indians themselves. And the usage of the already existing divisions in the Indian Society by the Raj (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_Race) made sure that antagonism that develops out of the repression would be directed against the Indians themselves rather than the Britishers.


I'd rather send people out, ready to defend themselves, than to submit to our enemy's boot.
:blink:
I hope you do not assume those use used Gandhi's Ahimsa against the British rulers actually submitted themselves to their masters boot. I hate this assumption which mostly comes from the western left wingers who does nothing more than assumption.I am disappointed that it is coming from you also.


And this is why I'm a pacifist, because I think extreme violence, ie. killing, is practically impossible without detaching yourself from humanity a bit and if you're not fighting for humanity anymore, what are you fighting for?

Even though in general I agree with your statement please do not judge those who use violence for their liberation. Most of them chose that path for the conditions and ruthlessness they have faced. We are comfortable enough to take out our positions but many are not.

[Vanguard1917]

'An oppressed class which does not strive to learn to use arms, to acquire arms, only deserves to be treated like slaves. We cannot, unless we have become bourgeois pacifists or opportunists, forget that we are living in a class society from which there is no way out, nor can there be, save through the class struggle and the overthrow of the power of the ruling class.'
- Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/01.htm)

[Lyev]

Even though in general I agree with your statement please do not judge those who use violence for their liberation. Most of them chose that path for the conditions and ruthlessness they have faced. We are comfortable enough to take out our positions but many are not.

When used for liberation, against oppression, violence is the lesser of two evils and therefore justifiable. Similar to an assassination attempt on Hitler, violence is more than acceptable against the evils of Capitalism.

[bosgek]

Violence is a means to an end.

Why not reach the end with only the most necessary violence?

When someone comes at you with a knife, as Richard Williams stated, you could kill or disable the person. But what is the real direct threat? 1: he has a weapon and 2: he can reach you. Lets pretend he cannot be intimidated to drop his knife or keep his distance. To use violence most efficient will mean disarming, creating distance and running away from the situation. This is more complicated and dangerous then shooting someone dead, but will leave you safe and the other with minor injuries.

Perhaps the same could be done against a capitalist state; disarm (e.g. weapon supply), create distance (be beyond attack range) and resolve the situation (diplomacy). Such a military strategy should lead to the least amount of violence to either side and still serve to the same end.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Perhaps the same could be done against a capitalist state; disarm (e.g. weapon supply), create distance (be beyond attack range) and resolve the situation (diplomacy). Such a military strategy should lead to the least amount of violence to either side and still serve to the same end.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The capitalist state is an inherently violent social relation that must be completely destroyed, so if you think diplomacy with said social relation could achieve our goal, you're mistaken. However, if you're referring to diplomacy with the people who support it (who are mostly brainwashed members of the working class), then yes, some of our goals could be achieved that way so long as we accept that some violence will indeed be necessary at times.

When a platoon of US Marines rappel into a worker-occupied factory, it's ludicrous to expect the workers to shoot to disable. ;)

[New Tet]

Violence is a means to an end. Whether it is appropriate or inappropriate depends on the circumstances. Pacifists and the like love to muddy the waters but it really is that simple, at least conceptually.

Conteptually, yes.

You can't visualize it in practical terms because...?

First of all, you have to try to think about violence in dialectical terms. That is, as one side of two seemingly irreconcilable opposites.

"This is not a method for cowards; it does resist. The nonviolent resister is just as strongly opposed to the evil against which he protests as is the person who uses violence. His method is passive or nonaggressive in the sense that he is not physically aggressive toward his opponent. But his mind and emotions are always active, constantly seeking to persuade the opponent that he is mistaken. This method is passive physically but strongly active spiritually; it is nonaggressive physically but dynamically aggressive spiritually. "
--MLK

[Pogue]

Anyone who lives a genuine life and is seriouslly involved in radical politics will quickly realise why violence is neccesary.

[New Tet]

Anyone who lives a genuine life and is seriouslly involved in radical politics will quickly realise why violence is neccesary.

The true radical cuts at the root of the tree of evil; the extremist sits on one of its branches, sawing it off.

[New Tet]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The capitalist state is an inherently violent social relation that must be completely destroyed, so if you think diplomacy with said social relation could achieve our goal, you're mistaken. However, if you're referring to diplomacy with the people who support it (who are mostly brainwashed members of the working class), then yes, some of our goals could be achieved that way so long as we accept that some violence will indeed be necessary at times.

When a platoon of US Marines rappel into a worker-occupied factory, it's ludicrous to expect the workers to shoot to disable. ;)

Has it ever occurred to you that those rappelling US Marines are also "brainwashed members of the working class" employed to do you and themselves harm?

[bosgek]

I meant resolve the situation. Diplomacy is one option, victory another.


When a platoon of US Marines rappel into a worker-occupied factory, it's ludicrous to expect the workers to shoot to disable. ;)
Disarming is something very different from disabling. When such a platoon rappels in, that would mean grabbing the guns with your hands, no shooting at all. As that would probably end badly, this dramatic situation is one in which "minimum necessary violence" involves shooting to kill.
However, fleeing would also resolve the situation and could be considered as a favorable option: factories can be rebuild and wars are only won by the ones that fight battles they know they'll win.

The point I was trying to make, is that there is necessary and unnecessary violence, the difference being the amount of damage being done to the person you're fighting, while the end result remains the same.

[Vargha Poralli]

Anyone who lives a genuine life and is seriouslly involved in radical politics will quickly realise why violence is neccesary.

Yes definitely. Just look at the naxalites. And where their violnt methods have led them and th people they fought for.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Has it ever occurred to you that those rappelling US Marines are also "brainwashed members of the working class" employed to do you and themselves harm?

Of course, which is why I wouldn't advocate killing them unless absolutely necessary. However, in such a situation, I do indeed believe that it would be absolutely necessary. The only other option would be to surrender the factory, and while this may initially seem like an attractive option (factories may be rebuilt), the ultimate result of such a strategy consistently applied would be a failed revolution, with the capitalists back in control of the means of production.

EDIT: Obviously, if it is possible to take some of the Marines alive, the workers should do so, for both ethical and strategic reasons.

[New Tet]

Of course, which is why I wouldn't advocate killing them unless absolutely necessary. However, in such a situation, I do indeed believe that it would be absolutely necessary. The only other option would be to surrender the factory, and while this may initially seem like an attractive option (factories may be rebuilt), the ultimate result of such a strategy consistently applied would be a failed revolution, with the capitalists back in control of the means of production.

EDIT: Obviously, if it is possible to take some of the Marines alive, the workers should do so, for both ethical and strategic reasons.

Ask yourself a simple question: "Have I ever killed anybody?" If the answer is "no", then you really must admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Ask yourself a simple question: "Have I ever killed anybody?" If the answer is "no", then you really must admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

:confused: Explain. I have never killed anyone, no. How does this disqualify me from being able to discuss the situations in which a person should kill?

[New Tet]

:confused: Explain. I have never killed anyone, no. How does this disqualify me from being able to discuss the situations in which a person should kill?

Because killing a person is such a godawful thing that to discuss on your terms would require that you have the experience of at least having been an accessory to it.

And because talking as you do, without first-hand experience in the killing business, is idle chatter from the safety of a computer console.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Because killing a person is such a godawful thing that to discuss on your terms would require that you have the experience of at least having been an accessory to it.

And because talking as you do, without first-hand experience in the killing business, is idle chatter from the safety of a computer console.

If it is not appropriate for someone who has never killed to discuss the conditions under which he/she should kill and those under which he/she should not, how will said person know the difference between the two if he/she ever encounters one of them?

[New Tet]

If it is not appropriate for someone who has never killed to discuss the conditions under which he/she should kill and those under which he/she should not, how will said person know the difference between the two if he/she ever encounters one of them?

By encountering one of them. Sad but true.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

First of all, you have to try to think about violence in dialectical terms. That is, as one side of two seemingly irreconcilable opposites.

Dialectics is bollocks and you should feel ashamed for even bringing it up. Case in point - there can be more than two sides in a conflict, so why not trialectics? Or quadralectics?

[Hit The North]

There is only two sides in the class struggle.

[Lyev]

So revolution always means killing, doesn't it? It's sad that capitalism is so oppressive that when it's coupled with the taking of a life it's the lesser of two evils...

[New Tet]

Dialectics is bollocks and you should feel ashamed for even bringing it up. Case in point - there can be more than two sides in a conflict, so why not trialectics? Or quadralectics?

Someone, please, buy this guy a book!

[New Tet]

So revolution always means killing, doesn't it? It's sad that capitalism is so oppressive that when it's coupled with the taking of a life it's the lesser of two evils...

No it doesn't. At the stage of development we're in, and with the opportunities unfolding before the working class, it is still possible for us to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism without the use of violence.

Socialist Industrial Unionism provides some of those non-violent possibilities.

[StalinFanboy]

I am not concerned with morality or purity. The only thing I am concerned with is winning. Violence works. The bourgeoisie haven't retained the amount of power and wealth that they have by playing nice.

[mikelepore]

Violence for self-defense and violence for revenge are different. If the slaves are rebelling today, and your master tries to block your exit, you have the right to blow his head off. That's self-defense. However, if the slaves rebelled last week, now it's all over, slavery is abolished, and now you have your former master as your disposal, you do not have the right to enact revenge.

[New Tet]

I am not concerned with morality or purity. The only thing I am concerned with is winning. Violence works. The bourgeoisie haven't retained the amount of power and wealth that they have by playing nice.

Purity and morality in the sense that you mean have little to do with non-violence as I understand it.

For one thing, the working class is at a disadvantage if it comes to an armed confrontation with the military might of the bourgeoisie. Also, it is possible that the workers can win over their brothers, sisters, sons & daughters who comprise almost all of the military thus neutralizing its power.

But, more basically, if we adopt the correct program we can dispossess the capitalist with a very minimum of violence and abolish their state without dislocating society. But we must approach it first with a non-violent mindset.

Instead of giving in to our notions of violence as inevitable we must explore other avenues, other methods by which we can create a sane, peaceful society.

[StalinFanboy]

Purity and morality in the sense that you mean have little to do with non-violence as I understand it.

For one thing, the working class is at a disadvantage if it comes to an armed confrontation with the military might of the bourgeoisie. Also, it is possible that the workers can win over their brothers, sisters, sons & daughters who comprise almost all of the military thus neutralizing its power.

But, more basically, if we adopt the correct program we can dispossess the capitalist with a very minimum of violence and abolish their state without dislocating society. But we must approach it first with a non-violent mindset.

Instead of giving in to our notions of violence as inevitable we must explore other avenues, other methods by which we can create a sane, peaceful society.
The argument against violence is that it's wrong. I don't care if it's wrong or not, as long as it works.

To think that there will be zero blood shed in a revolutionary situation is simply naive. The bourgeoisie are not just going to give up their power. They know damn well that they are ruining our lives and the planet, we aren't going to be able to reason with the entire bourgeois class.

[mikelepore]

When a platoon of US Marines rappel into a worker-occupied factory, it's ludicrous to expect the workers to shoot to disable.

The commander of the U.S. Marines, the only official who whom the Marines swear obedience, is a publicly elected position. He gets elected by the working class. He lives and works at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500. This is why the political organization of the workers cannot be neglected. The workers don't necessarily have to choose a commander-in-chief who would give an order to act against the workers.

[StalinFanboy]

The commander of the U.S. Marines, the only official who whom the Marines swear obedience, is a publicly elected position. He gets elected by the working class. He lives and works at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500. This is why the political organization of the workers cannot be neglected. The workers don't necessarily have to choose a commander-in-chief who would give an order to act against the workers.
Are you saying that we can use bourgeois democracy to create working class power?

[New Tet]

Are you saying that we can use bourgeois democracy to create working class power?

Not exclusively, but to the extent that it can be used, yes.

[21st Century Kropotkinist]

I was just wondering what people's positions were on violence/pacifism. I understand that violence is sometimes necessary. For example, I agree with Bertrand Russell's relative pacifism against Hitler and I realise a violent revolution against oppression can usually be justified.

However I believe violence and killing should be avoided at all costs and it's not like nothing is ever achieved by nonviolence, as some people argue. Think of Gandhi.

A few other questions are- 'When does the end justify the means?' Also- 'When is violent intervention needed, and to what extent?' I ask this question because sometimes I believe when you fight fire with fire you're no better than your foe and therefore your reason for fighting has been compromised.

If anyone knows of any relevant examples that would cool and I know this is a complex issue so thanks for any replies.


By the way I couldn't work out how to put a poll in, to see what people's views were.:confused:

Violence is usually something perpetuated by power structures. The private structure perpetuates violence on the many workers who die on work-related jobs every year, the thousands who die every day because food is a commodity, the chemicals in the food & water we drink, and by the destruction of the environment. The State perpetuates such violence by giving these private tyrannies "rights," being the host for such a cancer to thrive, and of course, through police brutality and the millions killed every decade by military forces. It is impossible for people to be more violent than the prison, than parliamentarian bodies, than corporations, etc.

However, people have the liberty to defend themselves. The "rulers" do not have a monopoly on violence. And sometimes it is necessary to defend oneself. How long has the majority of humanity dealt with it from power structures? How much is enough?

The human race hates violence perpetuated against them so much that, ironically, sometimes they're violent. A tangible example for me is the Spanish revolution. The Spanish anarchists used violence against a fascist state to defend their revolution and collectivization of industry, i.e., worker's control. If they did not use violence, an unfortunate reality, this movement would have been crushed by power structures a lot faster than it was.

So, what of pacifism? It presents problems to me in an absolutist stance. I would counter it with non-violence; I think this is something the overwhelming majority of us want an overwhelming amount of the time. Most of us hate violence. But as I said, if someone is being slaughtered, I see a just case for violence

[mikelepore]

Are you saying that we can use bourgeois democracy to create working class power?

There is no such thing as bourgeois democracy. That term and concept is an unsubstantiated article of faith among leftist organizations.

It is democracy in its formal process. The people are indoctrinated and brainwashed before they're allowed to vote, but the votes are in fact registered and the majority choices are carried out.

For thousands of years the human race struggled to find a way to resolve disagreements, without clubbing each other over the head, and in a more civilized way. After a very long process of struggle, people finally succeeded in eliminating the monarchies, and have set up systems that now ask the people what kinds of social administration they want to have.

At the present time the working class believes in capitalist class rule and expresses consent to it, and then, as a result, the working class gets exactly what it has voted to approve, namely, capitalist class rule. The process of democracy is working just fine.

The optical illusion that democracy is a failure occurs because revolutionaries have been unsuccessful for over 150 years in our attempt to find a way to persuade the working class to drop its allegiance to capitalism. We find it hard to accept the conservativism of the working class, so we have a tendency to blame the measurement process. In fact, the procedure to measure of the will of the people is accurately reflecting the will of the people. The majority of the working class consistently say that they want the continuation of capitalist rule, and then, sure enough, they get it.

As soon as the day comes that the majority of the working class want the ownership of the means of production to be transfered to the workers' organizations, then inevitably the results of the political process will reflect that new consciousness. Until then, there isn't a damn thing we can do about it except to try to find some new ways to persuade them.

[ZeroNowhere]

There is no such thing as bourgeois democracy. That term and concept is an unsubstantiated article of faith among leftist organizations.As far as I recall, it's often used, if not always (sometimes it's just used in place of an argument), in order to reflect that, regardless of its potential for revolution, it is still shaped by the capitalist order. This represents a break from feudal forms of government as well as voting in leaders that can't be recalled, and sit around for 4 or so years generally not following their promises (for example, ending the Iraq war in 16 months), the use of hierarchical investiture, expensive campaigns in which candidates are sponsored, and so on. It's generally used to highlight the whole thing about using the state ready-made and so on (that is, things such as recallable delegates must be used, etc).

[Howard509]

I recommend reading The Kingdom of God is Within You by Leo Tolstoy, a major influence on Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Many anarchists, like Tolstoy, are pacifists, seeing the state as dependent upon violence for its very existence.

I have to agree with Gandhi that violence is preferable to cowardice, only in self-defense, and only when all peaceful means have been exhausted.

[mikelepore]

As far as I recall, it's often used, if not always (sometimes it's just used in place of an argument), in order to reflect that, regardless of its potential for revolution, it is still shaped by the capitalist order. This represents a break from feudal forms of government as well as voting in leaders that can't be recalled, and sit around for 4 or so years generally not following their promises (for example, ending the Iraq war in 16 months), the use of hierarchical investiture, expensive campaigns in which candidates are sponsored, and so on. It's generally used to highlight the whole thing about using the state ready-made and so on (that is, things such as recallable delegates must be used, etc).

There are many serious flaws in the political system. There are some things about it that never were right in the first place, and there are some other things about it that once were historically progressive but which are now obsolete.

And at the same time that political system provides for channels for the people to correct all of those flaws if they wanted to and stuck firmly to the task.

There is some semantic wiggle-room here, but this is how I look at it. If a system has many undemocratic characteristics, but it would take on a more democratic form if the people would to yell for it -- if the people wouldn't have to storm any castle, seize any armory or man any barricades -- just decide resolutely and say so uncompromisingly -- doesn't that make it already democratic?

If a car won't respond well to the driver, but that's because the driver for some reason insists on keeping a large cement block tied to the brake pedal, isn't the car already responding to the driver?

***

"... the world has long since dreamed of something of which it needs only to become conscious for it to possess it in reality." -- Karl Marx, letter to Arnold Ruge, Sept. 1843

[ZeroNowhere]

Having undemocratic characteristics which could be corrected without fighting an army doesn't make something democratic, any more than the USSR was democratic because of how it 'fell'. Also, the lack of democratic characteristics makes it harder to transform rather than easier. If undemocratic tendencies were eliminated, there would be no need to worry about being sold out by the elected socialists, and therefore all pressure on them necessary would be the threat of recall for not doing whatever they are supposed to (hopefully abolishing capitalism, or, going by the current socialist movement, nationalizing banks and saying that the US sucks). The fact that its form serves the bourgeoisie as a form of class rule under capitalist stasis, though it could be used to fight capitalism (I nearly said 'them', it seems I'm picking up bad habits), is generally what is being expressed by the term 'bourgeois democracy'. That is, again, when it's not being used as an argument.

[revolution inaction]

The commander of the U.S. Marines, the only official who whom the Marines swear obedience, is a publicly elected position. He gets elected by the working class. He lives and works at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500. This is why the political organization of the workers cannot be neglected. The workers don't necessarily have to choose a commander-in-chief who would give an order to act against the workers.

There have been lots of occasions where militaries have rebelled against the government, whats to stop it happening again?

[mikelepore]

There have been lots of occasions where militaries have rebelled against the government, whats to stop it happening again?

I don't know that it couldn't happen again. I just consider that concern to be an example of what is called the perfect solution fallacy: "Some people have been killed in fires even through they had smoke alarms, therefore there's no point in installing smoke alarms." You don't need to know that something will be successful in order to do it. You only have to consider an idea's likelihood of success if there is a cost, and then you have to balance the estimated chance for success with the estimated cost. The cost of the political socialist method is zero, because in any case there will be some socialists who choose to run for public office, and it would cost nothing for all revolutionary workers' organizations to add a sentence to their literature to the effect, "Those of you who plan on voting, you are urged to vote only for candidates who openly support the transfer of the means of production to ownership and control by the workers."

That being said, I think rebellion by the military against elected office cannot take place in the U.S., because (unlike Chile in the 1970s) it is one of the systems with the strongest foundation of control of the military by an elected civilian executive. In other words, if the people in the U.S. elected a Marxist president and a Marxist Congress, and they in turn appointed a Marxist secretary of defense and Marxists to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then the U.S. army would instantly be a Marxist army. If I'm wrong about this, then, as I said in my first paragraph, I'm wrong only about something for which the total cost to attempt it was zero.

The strategy of NOT doing this is what has costs, and very large costs. If, on the day that revolutionary workers' organizations attempt to seize control of the means of production, loyal capitalist Democratic and Republicans politicians still have control of the political offices and the police and military agencies, to describe the probable outcome as a massacre of the workers would be an understatement.

So, to make this strategic choice, here are the column A and column B that we are comparing. On one side, a certain massacre. On the other side, the possibility of having a peaceful revolution, and, while some people are skeptical about the chance of success, the cost to try it is zero. I think this is an easy choice.

[revolution inaction]

I don't know that it couldn't happen again. I just consider that concern to be an example of what is called the perfect solution fallacy: "Some people have been killed in fires even through they had smoke alarms, therefore there's no point in installing smoke alarms." You don't need to know that something will be successful in order to do it. You only have to consider an idea's likelihood of success if there is a cost, and then you have to balance the estimated chance for success with the estimated cost. The cost of the political socialist method is zero, because in any case there will be some socialists who choose to run for public office, and it would cost nothing for all revolutionary workers' organizations to add a sentence to their literature to the effect, "Those of you who plan on voting, you are urged to vote only for candidates who openly support the transfer of the means of production to ownership and control by the workers."


people who claimed to be communists or socialists have been elected many times before, on every occasion this has happened they have either broken the promises they made before getting elected or have been overthrown either by a coup or intervention from the outside.
And the cost is not zero, election campaigns take a lot of effort that could be better spent elsewhere, also it requires that the workers put there trust in a politician rather than themselves. Additionally it fundamentally misunderstands how revolutions happen, they are not something that can be planed and implemented on a certain date, they occur when the workers dissatisfaction with the current system combined with there organisation becomes to much for the current society to contain.





That being said, I think rebellion by the military against elected office cannot take place in the U.S., because (unlike Chile in the 1970s) it is one of the systems with the strongest foundation of control of the military by an elected civilian executive. In other words, if the people in the U.S. elected a Marxist president and a Marxist Congress, and they in turn appointed a Marxist secretary of defense and Marxists to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then the U.S. army would instantly be a Marxist army. If I'm wrong about this, then, as I said in my first paragraph, I'm wrong only about something for which the total cost to attempt it was zero.

i really can't describe how ridicules this is.




The strategy of NOT doing this is what has costs, and very large costs. If, on the day that revolutionary workers' organizations attempt to seize control of the means of production, loyal capitalist Democratic and Republicans politicians still have control of the political offices and the police and military agencies, to describe the probable outcome as a massacre of the workers would be an understatement.

So, to make this strategic choice, here are the column A and column B that we are comparing. On one side, a certain massacre. On the other side, the possibility of having a peaceful revolution, and, while some people are skeptical about the chance of success, the cost to try it is zero. I think this is an easy choice.

Like how these people all get shot?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTp1c7bUf-k

Theres loads of occasions where solders have refused to shoot people, and sometimes they have joined them too, rather than relying on the milartry to be to incaibrble of doing anything but follow orders we are going to have to get the ordinary solders on our side.

[mikelepore]

people who claimed to be communists or socialists have been elected many times before, on every occasion this has happened they have either broken the promises they made before getting elected or have been overthrown either by a coup or intervention from the outside.

And, as of 1902, every attempt to make an airplane fly has ended in a crash, so is flying impossible? What has happened before provides no information about what may happen in the future if various methods get changed.

The pattern of broken promises was related to reformism. I don't advocate any reformism. I advocate the De Leon - Trautmann program of the workers organizing into one big industrial union, which a political mandate will recognize as the new management in every industry.


And the cost is not zero, election campaigns take a lot of effort that could be better spent elsewhere

I was clear about this before. There are going to exist some socialists who will run for political office in any event, because there's no chance that 100 percent of the population will be anarcho-syndicalists. Therefore, the cost of the conducting a socialist political campaign will be the same regardless of which strategy gets adopted by most workers' groups. There's no *additional* cost incurred if the workers' industrial organizations were to endorse the concept that workers who intend to vote should vote only for socialists.


also it requires that the workers put there trust in a politician rather than themselves.

The workers don't have the option of trusting only themselves, because it's already a given that the state has forces who are looking to their supervisors to tell them what to do each day. If the mayor tells the police to suppress the workers, then the police will do that, and if the mayor tells the police to go sit down and wait at headquarters, then the police will do that. If the president orders the army to suppress the workers, then the army will do that, and if the president orders the army to go camping in the mountains, then the army will do that. The violent forces of the state are just waiting to hear what their orders are. The offices that gives them those orders are publicly elected political offices, under the control of the working class.

Besides, the phobia about "trusting" is illogical. It's like saying the house is on fire, but don't call the fire department, because how do we know that the fire department wouldn't do something to make the situation even worse? It's a silly argument.


Additionally it fundamentally misunderstands how revolutions happen, they are not something that can be planed and implemented on a certain date, they occur when the workers dissatisfaction with the current system combined with there organisation becomes to much for the current society to contain.

How would you know? How many revolutions have you studied in highly technological societies where all of the following conditions have been achieved:

* where the capitalists class has been reduced so completely to a few absentee owners of stock certificates who usually have no personal role in industry?

* where and the continued rule of the capitalist class is based so largely on obtaining the consent of the indoctrinated workers, particularly the habit of expressing that consent through the voting process?

* where the working class has united into a single industrial union?


Theres loads of occasions where solders have refused to shoot people, and sometimes they have joined them too, rather than relying on the milartry to be to incaibrble of doing anything but follow orders we are going to have to get the ordinary solders on our side.

You're confusing the comparison of the precisely two choices that are available. The only two options are these: (1) The people in political office will be those who would order the state forces to suppress the workers; (2) The people in political office will be those who would order the state forces *NOT* to suppress the workers. That's the only question.

It's absurd to say: Let's intentionally have political officeholders whom we already know in advance will order the forcible suppression of the workers, and then gamble on the possibility that the troops will disobey those orders. That makes no sense. That's the same as saying: I want good health, so therefore I'm going to drink some poison and maybe it won't work.

***

"The organization of the working class must be both economic and political. The capitalist is organized upon both lines. You must attack him on both." -- De Leon

[Vanguard1917]

Conteptually, yes.

You can't visualize it in practical terms because...?

First of all, you have to try to think about violence in dialectical terms. That is, as one side of two seemingly irreconcilable opposites.

"This is not a method for cowards; it does resist. The nonviolent resister is just as strongly opposed to the evil against which he protests as is the person who uses violence. His method is passive or nonaggressive in the sense that he is not physically aggressive toward his opponent. But his mind and emotions are always active, constantly seeking to persuade the opponent that he is mistaken. This method is passive physically but strongly active spiritually; it is nonaggressive physically but dynamically aggressive spiritually. "
--MLK

But doesn't that show the limitations of his reformist approach? Is it really possible to 'persuade the opponent that he is mistaken' and end oppression by somehow changing the mind of the ruling class and making it see sense?

History shows that it isn't. It shows that the ruling class will use all the weapons and means of violence at its disposal -- from the baton to the bomb -- to safeguard its rule.

[Forward Union]

The true radical cuts at the root of the tree of evil; the extremist sits on one of its branches, sawing it off.

So you're saying the violence should be directed... yes I think we agree.

[Radical]

I dont believe violence should be "avoided at all costs". Allowing people to spread oppressive ideas could pose a great threat to the saftey of Humanity.

As much as I disagree with a lot of Stalin's politics.. I agree with him on this -
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas. "

Adolf Hitler agree's with me -
"Only one thing could have broken our movement - if our enemies had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed the nuclear of our movement with extreme brutality" - Hitler in 1933

We need Violence in many situations.

[Muzk]

This thread gives me the chills

Are you guys seriously full of that much hatred that you would hurt a HUMAN because of his beliefs in a capitalist society? You can take their power, but not their human rights!

After all, aren't we better than they are? Change comes through words and education, not through violence. Do you think they change their mind if you torture people, well hell no.
Counter-violence is okay. But you don't have to torture unarmed people, because then you would be oppressing them like they did to others!

You probably didn't mean it like this

[mel]

I dont believe violence should be "avoided at all costs". Allowing people to spread oppressive ideas could pose a great threat to the saftey of Humanity.

As much as I disagree with a lot of Stalin's politics.. I agree with him on this -
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas. "

Adolf Hitler agree's with me -
"Only one thing could have broken our movement - if our enemies had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed the nuclear of our movement with extreme brutality" - Hitler in 1933

We need Violence in many situations.

I'm impressed. Quoting both Stalin AND Hitler in support of your position? That's got to be a new record for this forum. Next time, try to get Pol Pot in there as well. I think you can probably find a better way of supporting the position that violence is sometimes necessary than to quote Hitler.

-------

To address the question, I think the only morally legitimate use of violence is the violent force used in self-defense. The only limiting factor on self-defense is that you only use as much force as necessary to ultimately defuse the threat. Revolution is an act of self-defense carried out by the working class. A revolution does not have to be morally optimal (a term I use to describe a situation in which violence has been kept fully within the guidelines and only exactly as much force as necessary is used), so long as the violence against them (structural violence imposed by capitalism) is ended and the threat removed. In countries where it is possible, we should hope to carry out revolution in the morally optimal manner and avoid lethal force. Sparing the lives of our former oppressors can be strong propaganda to reign in further support for our cause, and I think it gets the new society we hope to build (based on free association and cooperation) off on the right foot.

[Smash DEM BMP]

Violence is wrong end off.

[mel]

Violence is wrong end off.

That'll show 'em!

[FreeFocus]

I don't care about so-called "moral" considerations, as long as terrorism, i.e. violence against civilians, is not carried out. The use of violence or nonviolence is more so a strategic choice. I would never denounce oppressed groups defending themselves, although I may criticize their particular tactics.

Basically, when you're serious though, it will always come down to violence. The state will employ violence if you're a serious enough threat, and even if you're not you will probably still be attacked. If you still exist as a human being and not some ideological pacifist who has had his will to live smashed, your survival instincts will kick in, and you will act to preserve yourself. That's basically what it comes down to. Ideological pacifists are basically a bunch of crazies.

[originofopinion]

I was just wondering what people's positions were on violence/pacifism. I understand that violence is sometimes necessary. For example, I agree with Bertrand Russell's relative pacifism against Hitler and I realise a violent revolution against oppression can usually be justified.

However I believe violence and killing should be avoided at all costs and it's not like nothing is ever achieved by nonviolence, as some people argue. Think of Gandhi.

A few other questions are- 'When does the end justify the means?' Also- 'When is violent intervention needed, and to what extent?' I ask this question because sometimes I believe when you fight fire with fire you're no better than your foe and therefore your reason for fighting has been compromised.



If anyone knows of any relevant examples that would cool and I know this is a complex issue so thanks for any replies.


By the way I couldn't work out how to put a poll in, to see what people's views were.:confused:


Well to be honest, I myself am a Pacifist. I see violence as a pointless way to solve conflict. I avoid violence at all costs. Along with that I like to act as a peace-keeper of a sort.

But Violence can be justified along with everything else.
It can be justified through empathy or Just putting yourself in the other persons shoe.

And I can't really say I'm pacifist, because in a certain scenario I might do a violent action without really considering the situation. You really have to judge whether the violence is needed in that certain scenario. That's why I've renounced my Pacifism to be a Defend myself and others from aggressive harm, such as Imperialism, Capitalism and other things along that line. I see my Working Class as a subject of a humiliation and discrimanation. That is something I will fight against. :star2:

[brakaslava]

everything in the world is made of atoms

there are protons (+1) and electrons(-1) even in empty space, it's not so empty because there are protons and electrons floating around where there is no life, no light and nothing but atoms.

the world is based on neutrons, neutrality and for that you require both electrons and protons because if you have even one too many of either you risk destroying the fine balance and plunging into chaos.

even if there was no violence on this planet, it would translate into only violence on another planet

so is violence necessary? that depends on if peace is necessary,
and even furtherso

on our personal definition of peace,

would neutrons be peace? or would the protons be peace?
electrons i think would be violence but I'm not sure if peace is a neutral or positive advantage.

if its positive then whats the neutrality between protons and electrons? between war and peace?

if someone could help me develop my idea, i would be most grateful.

[Muzk]

Sounds like total bullshit

But let others judge...


Also, protons and electrons are particles and not human beings ~_~

[mel]

everything in the world is made of atoms

there are protons (+1) and electrons(-1) even in empty space, it's not so empty because there are protons and electrons floating around where there is no life, no light and nothing but atoms.

the world is based on neutrons, neutrality and for that you require both electrons and protons because if you have even one too many of either you risk destroying the fine balance and plunging into chaos.

even if there was no violence on this planet, it would translate into only violence on another planet

so is violence necessary? that depends on if peace is necessary,
and even furtherso

on our personal definition of peace,

would neutrons be peace? or would the protons be peace?
electrons i think would be violence but I'm not sure if peace is a neutral or positive advantage.

if its positive then whats the neutrality between protons and electrons? between war and peace?

if someone could help me develop my idea, i would be most grateful.

Your entire idea is based on a useless analogy that describes people as if they are charged particles. The best "development" would be to toss it in the trash bin.

[brakaslava]

to me this makes sense,
maybe i cannot explain how it is in my head
but thats usually the problem with ideas,
however i also feel there is a truly negative atmosphere on these boards
it as though each person thinks his ideas are the right ones and will argue everyone and anyone who thinks differently.

i came here to learn something new and partake in a community, all that ive gotten so far is multiple flamings, name callings and the general put down of ideas in a very negative manner.

in my opinion, this forum is complete garbage.

[mel]

to me this makes sense,
maybe i cannot explain how it is in my head
but thats usually the problem with ideas,
however i also feel there is a truly negative atmosphere on these boards
it as though each person thinks his ideas are the right ones and will argue everyone and anyone who thinks differently.

i came here to learn something new and partake in a community, all that ive gotten so far is multiple flamings, name callings and the general put down of ideas in a very negative manner.

in my opinion, this forum is complete garbage.

I'm sorry for my scathing response to your theory earlier, but let me address it directly.

You equate positive and negative charges at an atomic level with positive and negative "social energy" which are quantifiably different things. There is no correlation between number of electrons and the amount of violence in the universe. There is nothing you can do to make that claim more reasonable, and no evidence you can site to justify your position.

I shouldn't have suggested that you outright trash your theory, and if you wish to believe that there is some sort of karmic balance in the universe, that every "good" comes with some "bad", that is entirely your choice, but you need to find a way to justify it beyond charged particles. They add nothing to your case.

[Muzk]

I'm sorry for my scathing response to your theory earlier, but let me address it directly.

He's been in IRC with us before - he seems to like both capitalism and communism, but thinks both fail.

[The Red Next Door]

no, violence is never justify unless you had live in a state like iran before and after the revolution, chile 1973-1989 Argentina 1970- 1985, and other latin american dictatorship and dictatorships in other countries. so there no need for revolutionary violence in this country or anyother liberal democracy.

[Искра]

no, violence is never justify unless you had live in a state like iran before and after the revolution, chile 1973-1989 Argentina 1970- 1985, and other latin american dictatorship and dictatorships in other countries. so there no need for revolutionary violence in this country or anyother liberal democracy.
I would ban you for this.
So LIBERAL DEMOCRACY means that you can solve everything with "no violence"? And Stalinist here tag me as liberal.
Liberal democracy = capitalist society. If you wanna communist society you must make a revolution (act of collective violence).
Violence is not a goal, it's a tool.

[Dimentio]

I was just wondering what people's positions were on violence/pacifism. I understand that violence is sometimes necessary. For example, I agree with Bertrand Russell's relative pacifism against Hitler and I realise a violent revolution against oppression can usually be justified.

However I believe violence and killing should be avoided at all costs and it's not like nothing is ever achieved by nonviolence, as some people argue. Think of Gandhi.

A few other questions are- 'When does the end justify the means?' Also- 'When is violent intervention needed, and to what extent?' I ask this question because sometimes I believe when you fight fire with fire you're no better than your foe and therefore your reason for fighting has been compromised.

If anyone knows of any relevant examples that would cool and I know this is a complex issue so thanks for any replies.


By the way I couldn't work out how to put a poll in, to see what people's views were.:confused:

When possible, violence should be avoided. I am in a basic agreement about that.

[bcbm]

I would ban you for this.

what the fuck?

[KarlMarx1989]

I believe that absolute violence is not the answer to a problem, as christian-America seems to think, but I also believe that absolute peace is not the answer either. I think that people should be peaceful and use violence in defense when confronted.

[Abc]

i think violence sould only be used for revolutionary purposes in the face of oppression and when more lives would be lost by not using it, however there is no excuse for killing innocent people this includes bombing citys and executing people just for having a different political views then you, don't get me wronge i have no problem with a fascist pig being shot as long as he has commited acts worthy of execution but you sould not shoot someone just because they think that fascism is a better system, you sould focus on educating them about why its bad

[Luís Henrique]

This discussion seems to revolve on abstractions. There is not such thing as Violence outside of specific cases of violent action. A political revolution, the murder of a politician, the murder of an innocent person, a car crash, a war between two imperialist countries, a boxing match, the repression of a political demonstration, the repression of a street brawl, a street brawl, are all concrete instances of violence. It isn't possible to address them in abstract, insulated from their social causes and consequences. It is impossible to discuss if we are in favour or against "violence" in abstract. And to talk about Violence in these terms is to mistify violence.

The concrete thing is, the bourgeois State is the organisation of violence against the working class in order to perpetuate its exploitation. Do we believe that such violence is justified? Do we believe it is possible to abolish such violence by purely pacific means? Do we believe that it is possible to abolish such violence by any and every act of counter-violence, regardless of any political context? Or do we think that the issue is the abolition of exploitation, and of the organisation of violence against the exploited, the rest being an issue of means to an end?

Luís Henrique

[mannetje]

I believe that absolute violence is not the answer to a problem, as christian-America seems to think, but I also believe that absolute peace is not the answer either. I think that people should be peaceful and use violence in defense when confronted. being peacefull is a good thing. But it's hard to stay peacefull if authorities are fucking with ya. I don't have a violent nature. and if i get in to an argument with someone and it seems to turn in to violence i do everything avoid violence. But if i have no choice ,i defend my self by any means i can. but only then,

And I must say that I don't like weapons. I've been trough alot in my life and it always seemed that cowardly people are carrieng weapons. If I look a the situation in the united states of how many people are getting killed by guns, and i think that that has to do with the easy acces to guns over there. I don't know too much about the usa, but i saw once in a Michael Moore movie, where in he went to canada. from the littlebit i know from canada i learned that in canada where is what i can remember from that movie. that they have a good law on weapon possesion And that the murder rate over there is almost nothing .compared to the gun loving usa. and that there seems to be less crime in general. (oh oh I'm in a rant.) But I know that in a war-situation are necessary. If the enemies come to me with their weapons. It would be weird to call em out with only my fists, or they think that i'm so funny that they spare me.

[NecroCommie]

Who the fuck said that violence does not solve things? Try persuading a nail into the wall. I'll bet you resort to te hammer sooner or later. And while you're at it, grab a sickle too.

EDIT: Well if this didn't come out as a weird post...

[Lyev]

Who the fuck said that violence does not solve things? Try persuading a nail into the wall. I'll bet you resort to te hammer sooner or later. And while you're at it, grab a sickle too.

EDIT: Well if this didn't come out as a weird post...

I recently read a book by Mark Kurlanksy about the history of non-violence which examines Ahimsa and some of Ghandi's thought. So your post is kind of interesting when thinking about what actually constitutes violence. In some cases, apparently, violence even means thinking violent thoughts, ie. anger, hatred, resentment. I think in some Hinduism and Jainism you're not allowed to have angry thoughts in case of karmic consequences. Some Jainists even go as far as covering their mouth with like a special mask thingy so they don't swallow any tiny insects. It's quite admirable I suppose.

[Hit The North]

I would ban you for this.



what the fuck?

Well, we are a community of revolutionaries and revolutions do depend upon some level of violence. So maybe not a ban, but certainly a restriction as arguing that violence is never necessary for the working class in a liberal democracy leaves reform as the only option for transcending capitalism and that is reformism.

[ZeroNowhere]

If one advocates socialism by peaceful means, one is still advocating revolution. If one advocates maintaining capitalism, which they were not, then one is advocating reformism. Wasn't the reason for restriction to stop threads devolving into capitalism vs. communism debates, and rather to leave it as a place for revolutionaries to discuss stuff, rather than because you don't think that revolution as they advocate it (ie. without violence) is possible?


Who the fuck said that violence does not solve things? Try persuading a nail into the wall. I'll bet you resort to te hammer sooner or later. And while you're at it, grab a sickle too.A very strong argument. Except that that's not what we mean by 'violence'. If it's an analogy, you're begging the question, since the thing in question is whether or not that would be a valid analogy.

[Hit The North]

If one advocates socialism by peaceful means, one is still advocating revolution. If one advocates maintaining capitalism, which they were not, then one is advocating reformism. Wasn't the reason for restriction to stop threads devolving into capitalism vs. communism debates, and rather to leave it as a place for revolutionaries to discuss stuff, rather than because you don't think that revolution as they advocate it (ie. without violence) is possible?


I guess you're right. Good point.

[MilitantAnarchist]

I believe violence is a neciserry evil, unfortunatly...
I also beleive that if you can have a revolution through peace, you can truley make a change, but if you have a revolution through violence, you are making no change atall...

[NecroCommie]

A very strong argument. Except that that's not what we mean by 'violence'. If it's an analogy, you're begging the question, since the thing in question is whether or not that would be a valid analogy.
Where as I originally meant it as a half serious joke, one might say that the most fanatical of racists are not prone to logic, and therefore beyond all persuation. At least most of us know what it would take for us to abandon our communist ideals... I hope. Besides, those who directly profit from the capitalist mode of production, ignore logic completely since it is in their favour to impose capitalism.

[revolt4thewin]

Any thing that gets the job done.