Violence leads to violence

[Comrade Anarchist]

The only power governments or anybody in general has over us is the power we give them. If we decide to withdraw our consent to their legitimacy then they fail. Without consent governments become illegitimate and are therefore bound for collapse. This is the pacifist revolution.

Violent revolutions usually if not always transfer over to violent and repressive regimes. Look at the american revolution which was a war and it created a republic. This republic is now burying itself and sacrificing itself for security. The people of the republic are pretty much those of rome who willingly gave their republic up to a dictatorship, while the american people are giving up a republic for a totalitarian democracy. The french revolution was one of the worst revolutions in history. It was bloody from the beginning with people going crazy with blood lust at the bastille. It set up a constitutional monarchy and when the king tried to escape they killed him and his wife and the people feeling betrayed gave up their recently won rights to committees or oligarchy despots. Then the revolution totally spun off its axis and drowned in its own blood, literally. The effect of all this blood shed led to the rise of the most powerful man in European history, Napoleon. The bolshevik revolution led to civil war, and once the bolsheviks had cemented their reign it became a tyrannical totalitarian hell, which used violence to control and create an inept population.

A revolution is a pinnacle moment that can change everything with just the threat of its occurrence. But when a revolution occurs it must be peaceful or else it will fail to reach its intended goals, and the latent effects of this faliure can create tyrannical regimes like those of the french and bolshevik revolutions. To seek peace through violent means is to sacrifice peace to violence. Peace can only occur if the means to reach it are themselves peaceful.

[Dimentio]

I agree that violence should be avoided and not initiated. But if the people is attacked by the machinery of the establishment, they should be able to defend themselves.

[Havet]

Comrade Anarchist, will you actually reply to some of the criticisms people will throw at you? What's the point of making threads if you don't reply to them?

When I started, with similar views to you, I always tried to respond to as much criticisms as I could in order to prove my point. But you just seem to post to annoy. If you are indeed an advocate of reason and logic (I presume that is what you use to justify anarcho-capitalism), what reason and logic is there in creating discussions you will not bother replying too?

How can you be certain that you are right if you are not open to the proposition that you might be wrong? Yes, you MAY be right, but if you close criticism and do not care to debate, you MIGHT be wrong and WILL REMAIN wrong.

Do you really prefer ignorance to knowledge?

[Demogorgon]

To try and reply seriously to this, I am no fan of violence, given two equally effective means to achieve something, a peaceful means and a violent means I will always choose the peaceful one. But do you think the examples you gave were cases of the revolutions beginning violence or even that there was a peaceful option available?

The sheer cruelty, brutality and indeed violence of the French and Russian monarchies was such that only total overthrow of them by force was a realistic option. Given the circumstances it is little wonder things got out of hand.

[Comrade Anarchist]

The sheer cruelty, brutality and indeed violence of the French and Russian monarchies was such that only total overthrow of them by force was a realistic option. Given the circumstances it is little wonder things got out of hand.

I kinda understand how the french revolution may have needed a degree of violence, b/c the subjects were born into servitude and had no longing for liberty, so the educated among them took hold and created violence. But what im thinking of is this continuation of the revolution that occurs after most revolutions. This idea that once the purpose is complete it is still happening and needs to be protected is what leads to the violence especially in france.

Now on to the bolsheviks. No this revolution was started only to establish a dictatorship. The provisional government was in place. The monarchy was in no way oppressive and had become irrelevant under the new government. Upon seeing the weakness of the provisional government lenin created the october revolution and took control, but not until after a civil war. Once in power they constantly used the phrase to protect the revolution, which as i mentioned before is just a way to persuade people to willingly give up rights.

"Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power." Orwell sums up what im trying to say.

[Havet]

Yay, you replied! I'm proud of you!

[#FF0000]

The only power governments or anybody in general has over us is the power we give them. If we decide to withdraw our consent to their legitimacy then they fail. Without consent governments become illegitimate and are therefore bound for collapse. This is the pacifist revolution.

The thing is though, that governments aren't just boogeymen that'll disappear from under our beds once we stop believing in them. Try not paying your taxes and see what happens. Same thing'd happen if you got a thousand people to do the same thing. You'd be met with violence, is my point.

So, yeah, I guess if we lived in a fantasy world where the state held to the social contractand all governments weren't class dictatorships, then I suppose you could have a government that wouldn't respond with force to "pacifist" revolution.

I think you'd be very interested in a blog post by user Melbicimni, on the topic of "Revolutionary Ethics" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=598)

[Comrade Anarchist]

The thing is though, that governments aren't just boogeymen that'll disappear from under our beds once we stop believing in them. Try not paying your taxes and see what happens. Same thing'd happen if you got a thousand people to do the same thing. You'd be met with violence, is my point.

I hate majority rule but if a majority of people being oppressed withdraw support from a government and just ignore it like Stirner says to do or to just withdraw from it and create a new system right beside it as an alternative, then what power does that government have. In this majority im including police and military, b/c although they are dependent upon the government they can still and will be bit by it.

Tyrants have "nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities,where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you?How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you?"- Étienne de La Boétie

See if people, including the police and such do not offer the tyrant power then he has none over them nor anyone else.

[Demogorgon]

I kinda understand how the french revolution may have needed a degree of violence, b/c the subjects were born into servitude and had no longing for liberty, so the educated among them took hold and created violence. But what im thinking of is this continuation of the revolution that occurs after most revolutions. This idea that once the purpose is complete it is still happening and needs to be protected is what leads to the violence especially in france.

Now on to the bolsheviks. No this revolution was started only to establish a dictatorship. The provisional government was in place. The monarchy was in no way oppressive and had become irrelevant under the new government. Upon seeing the weakness of the provisional government lenin created the october revolution and took control, but not until after a civil war. Once in power they constantly used the phrase to protect the revolution, which as i mentioned before is just a way to persuade people to willingly give up rights.

"Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power." Orwell sums up what im trying to say.
You realise that amongst other things, the Provisional Government was keeping Russia in the war? Russia was being devastated by that war both in terms of all the lives being lost on the Front and the food shortages back home. SOmething had to be done about that.

That's also leaving aside that the provisional Government itself wasn't exactly a beacon of a new and open state. It was packed with Aristocrats. The Tsar may have lost his personal power, but those who had Governed around him hadn't. The new Government was likely to simply be "business as usual".

Finally, the Provisional Government was at absolute odds with the urban population of Russia. Which of course means that either it would have rapidly collapsed anyway or would have had to resort to brutality to keep itself in power. The problem with the Bolsheviks of course was the opposite. They were at odds with the rural population.

However we drift from the point. I do not wish to argue here whether the October Revolution as justified or not, that is a well trodden path. You are arguing that violence to change society is inherently wrong. I replied sometimes it is the only way it can happen.

[mel]

Now on to the bolsheviks. No this revolution was started only to establish a dictatorship. The provisional government was in place. The monarchy was in no way oppressive and had become irrelevant under the new government. Upon seeing the weakness of the provisional government lenin created the october revolution and took control, but not until after a civil war. Once in power they constantly used the phrase to protect the revolution, which as i mentioned before is just a way to persuade people to willingly give up rights.

This is pretty much factually untrue on all counts. Lenin did not "create the october revolution" like it was a school project, the provisional government was a mess which was bringing Russia even further into World War I. The working class in the cities was demonstrably unhappy with the direction the provisional government was taking, because they were still revolting and taking over factories well before October 1917. The bolsheviks were the only socialist group who read the sentiment of the working class, and the revolution was a mass movement.

If it was just a ploy to set up a dictatorship, then why would they have bothered instituting a constitution which protected the rights of the working class and sink tons of energy into the creation of a legislative structure? Facing facts here, the only way you can make the claim that a dictatorship was the intention is to make it up out of whole cloth. All of the documents, all of the historical record, and all of the writings of all of the bolsheviks disagree with you very strongly.

[Zanthorus]

This is probably pretty relevant:



— 16 —
Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?
It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.

But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.

- http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm#16

Also, IMO, "violence" is a loaded term. Trying to debate "violence" vs "peaceful means" is always going to end up as and ideologically loaded.

Fact is that apart from fascists no one actively supports "violence". They do however reject pacifism as being a useless dogma that inevitably leads to failure because pacifists generally fail to understand when the time to sit down and talk with your enemy is over and the time to pick up a gun and start shooting or else be killed has started.


The only power governments or anybody in general has over us is the power we give them.

False. This is only partially true in liberal-democracies when the government prefers the use of propaganda over direct force as an easier method to control the population however you can bet your arse that if say, the population of one of the US states all got up and denied the legitimacy of the US government the feds wouldn't back down from using the police and the military to quell the uprising.

Ideological propaganda is only used insofar as it's easier to maintain than the use of force. When that fails however governments usually have no problem "restoring order" through the use of military means.


Violent revolutions usually if not always transfer over to violent and repressive regimes. Look at the american revolution which was a war and it created a republic. This republic is now burying itself and sacrificing itself for security. The people of the republic are pretty much those of rome who willingly gave their republic up to a dictatorship, while the american people are giving up a republic for a totalitarian democracy. The french revolution was one of the worst revolutions in history. It was bloody from the beginning with people going crazy with blood lust at the bastille. It set up a constitutional monarchy and when the king tried to escape they killed him and his wife and the people feeling betrayed gave up their recently won rights to committees or oligarchy despots. Then the revolution totally spun off its axis and drowned in its own blood, literally. The effect of all this blood shed led to the rise of the most powerful man in European history, Napoleon. The bolshevik revolution led to civil war, and once the bolsheviks had cemented their reign it became a tyrannical totalitarian hell, which used violence to control and create an inept population.

A revolution is a pinnacle moment that can change everything with just the threat of its occurrence. But when a revolution occurs it must be peaceful or else it will fail to reach its intended goals, and the latent effects of this faliure can create tyrannical regimes like those of the french and bolshevik revolutions. To seek peace through violent means is to sacrifice peace to violence. Peace can only occur if the means to reach it are themselves peaceful.

Well done, you picked two examples of "failed" (debatable) revolutions, noted that they both involved the use of violence and concluded that violence will always lead to failure.

You know that brief period when you masqueraded as a leftist? You remember that little thing called materialist historical analysis? Maybe you should start using it...

[LeftSideDown]

This is probably pretty relevant:



- http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm#16

Also, IMO, "violence" is a loaded term. Trying to debate "violence" vs "peaceful means" is always going to end up as and ideologically loaded.

Fact is that apart from fascists no one actively supports "violence". They do however reject pacifism as being a useless dogma that inevitably leads to failure because pacifists generally fail to understand when the time to sit down and talk with your enemy is over and the time to pick up a gun and start shooting or else be killed has started.


You have to wonder that if it takes killing of massive quantities of people to make your Utopia come about if its really Utopia... I mean, I could make everybody in the world rich if I just killed 99% of it... wheres the class struggle now?

[Left-Reasoning]

The only power governments or anybody in general has over us is the power we give them. If we decide to withdraw our consent to their legitimacy then they fail. Without consent governments become illegitimate and are therefore bound for collapse. This is the pacifist revolution.

"Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces." - Etienne de la Boetie

[IcarusAngel]

The problem is that "market theorists" want to replace government with people who own and control property, and derive power from that ownership. In this case, they can make you work for them and implement rules that you must be forced to live by, or else you will be removed ("purged" as market theorist Hoppe put it) from the property.

In fact, this type of force actually sounds worse than our current democratic government.

[Left-Reasoning]

The problem is that "market theorists" want to replace government with people who own and control property, and derive power from that ownership. In this case, they can make you work for them and implement rules that you must be forced to live by, or else you will be removed ("purged" as market theorist Hoppe put it) from the property.

In fact, this type of force actually sounds worse than our current democratic government.

Replace "market theorist" with "anarcho"-capitalist and I agree completely.

[whore]

the state, government, uses force or the threat of force everyday. try and not pay your taxes, and see what the government say. try and speed, and then ignore the police and courts.

capitalism only can exist because of force or the threat of force too. try and walk into a shop, load up a trolley, and walk out again with the trolley, and without paying. (whether you have some mythical anarchist capitalism (a contradiction in terms if i ever saw one), or state regulated capitalism, the end is the same, force being used)

so, the state uses force to enforce its arbitary rules. if you try and ignore those rules, you will be attacked.

a violent revolution is justified for no other reason then it is self defence. so, yes, violence (from the state and government) does lead to violence (against the state, in self defence).

now, if the government would just up and go away without any violence, that would be the best option. but it is not likely. what we (that is, revolutionaries) must do then, is work to bring about a revolution from below, without a center or hierarchy. that is what brings about problems (the center or hierarchy) in revolutions, and leads to more violence and another state.

states dont just disappear, they must be destroyed. and well, peaceful would be better, but they dont just accept when people dont pay taxes, and their death throes tend to be long and dangerous to those around them. (not always, the ussr died with virtually any violence, but still afganistan was violent enough).

[Comrade Anarchist]

Violence is never justified. Every revolution could have easily occurred if the people just withdrew their support from the government. The government has no police unless the people give them to them, the government has no military unless the people give it to them. The force that we are threatened with by the government is us. We give them that force for support not realizing that the force is then used upon us. Capitalism is the antithesis of violence. It chooses to solve problems through negotiations and trade, not by killing people. Capitalism with a state becomes terror, but laissez faire capitalism is freedom and without a government it means individual freedom. It can only happen though or else the society after the revolution will be violent.

[Bud Struggle]

A revolution is a pinnacle moment that can change everything with just the threat of its occurrence. But when a revolution occurs it must be peaceful or else it will fail to reach its intended goals, and the latent effects of this faliure can create tyrannical regimes like those of the french and bolshevik revolutions. To seek peace through violent means is to sacrifice peace to violence. Peace can only occur if the means to reach it are themselves peaceful.

That's the problem with Revolutions. They don't end with peace and happy conclusions--the fighting goes on and on. The Revolutionaries are often fighting a counter revolution and the Revolutionaries fearing for the safty of the Revolution tend to become as bad as the people they were revolting against. That's what happened in the Terror after the French Revolution and theat's what happened with Stalin's purges. Even after the American Revolution the Torries were licked out of the US quite voilently.

Revolutions are messy and violence does often lead to violence.

[whore]

Violence is never justified.so, you are a pacifist? i can understand that perspective, but i disagree with it.

lets say i decide i want your item. i walk up to you and take it. what are you going to do about it? if you try and take it back, i will punch you and kick you.

ok, the next day, i come up and decide i just dont like you at all, and i attack you punching and kicking, you are going to do nothing yes?

i then decide that i dont like the look of your partner, and i want to beat them up as well. and your child.

everyday i come back and kick and beat you. you are unable to work. you live in constant fear.

yet no one is stopping me, because you say to them "violence is never justified".

ok, now, im actually a nice person, i am just attacking you and your family. it just so happens that down the road is a not nice person. they actually want to enslave you and your family. they chain you to a sewing machine and say, "if you want to eat, i want to see four shirts made an hour". when someone comes to rescue you (perhaps me, because even though i like kicking you, i dont like seeing you exploited), the person from down the road violently defends their property (thats you, slave).

are you sure that violence is never justified?

once you accept that self defence is justified, you can use it against the state.


Revolutions are messy and violence does often lead to violence.
and yet you are happy with the current "state of affairs" where the state is contantly using violence against people.
even if you wish to live in the woods, and not use any services of the state, they will still force you to pay them money (property taxes at a minimum) or they will lock you up (or even just take away your land). and if you resist, they will shoot you.

at least revolutionaries are aiming for a world without violence

[RGacky3]

Violence is never justified.

Unless property laws are violated right?


Every revolution could have easily occurred if the people just withdrew their support from the government. The government has no police unless the people give them to them, the government has no military unless the people give it to them. The force that we are threatened with by the government is us. We give them that force for support not realizing that the force is then used upon us. Capitalism is the antithesis of violence. It chooses to solve problems through negotiations and trade, not by killing people. Capitalism with a state becomes terror, but laissez faire capitalism is freedom and without a government it means individual freedom. It can only happen though or else the society after the revolution will be violent.

Your right part of revolution is resistance against the state, but more importantly, its through direct action against the Capitalist, strikes, occupations and the such.

Capitalism is 100% based on violence, because thats the whole basis for property laws.

[Havet]

Capitalism is 100% based on violence, because thats the whole basis for property laws.

Isn't communism 100% based on violence, since it requires force to enforce communal property rights, restrictive covenants, expulsion of free-riders out of the commune, etc?

[whore]

Isn't communism 100% based on violence, since it requires force to enforce communal property rights, restrictive covenants, expulsion of free-riders out of the commune, etc?
the only use of violence in a communist community is self defence. if a free rider doesnt get out after being told to, then the community can put them out. if the free rider comes back, the community can defend itself.

communal property doesnt require violence to defend.

i dont know what you mean by the second one.

[RGacky3]

Not really, Anarcho-communists don't believe in communal property rights, you don't need them, if decicions effect various parties those parties have equal say in those decisions, plain and simple, society chooses democratically what property needs to be communal, you don't need property rights for that. Expulsion of free-riders? Who supports that? Most here don't, plus there is no evidence that free-riders would be a problem at all.

[Havet]

the only use of violence in a communist community is self defence. if a free rider doesnt get out after being told to, then the community can put them out. if the free rider comes back, the community can defend itself.

Self-defense assumes that collective property is legitimate.


communal property doesnt require violence to defend.

Oh yes it does. Try stealing something from a commune and see what happens.


i dont know what you mean by the second one.

Either there's a worldwide global commune, or there are many communes. Since the later case is much more realistic, you need to know when commune A ends and commune B starts, besides the different rules that will apply to each. hence the concept of restrictive covenant.

[Havet]

Not really, Anarcho-communists don't believe in communal property rights, you don't need them, if decicions effect various parties those parties have equal say in those decisions, plain and simple, society chooses democratically what property needs to be communal, you don't need property rights for that. Expulsion of free-riders? Who supports that? Most here don't, plus there is no evidence that free-riders would be a problem at all.

Do you seriously believe that if i want to make orange juice from the orange juice machine, which is a capital good (what you call a 'means of production') I HAVE TO get every single person on the planet to vote in majority or consensus for me to make this cup of orange juice or else I'm being exclusive???

As far of expulsion of free-riders, Kropotkin supports that:

""But if not one, of the thousands of groups of our federation, will receive you, whatever be their motive; if you are absolutely incapable of producing anything useful, or if you refuse to do it, then live like an isolated man....That is what could be done in a communal society in order to turn away sluggards if they become too numerous."" - The Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin

[RGacky3]

No, you don't need consensus, unless someone might have a problem with it, then you have to resolve it, I don't know why they would, but I've answered this before.

As far as what Kropotkin says, so what? It still has'nt been shown at all that there would be free riders.

[Havet]

No, you don't need consensus, unless someone might have a problem with it, then you have to resolve it, I don't know why they would, but I've answered this before.

So you think that suddenly all problems will vanish and nobody will ever have a problem with what other people do with the common means of production? That suddenly all interests will come together?


As far as what Kropotkin says, so what? It still has'nt been shown at all that there would be free riders.

So you acknowledge that a proponent of communism supports such exclusivity?

What makes you think that free-riders will cease to exist?

[Comrade Anarchist]

Unless property laws are violated right?

No, it depends on how property rights are violated. If my neighbor pushes his property line 5 feet over onto mine then we will discuss it or ill sue him in a private court. If a some militant terrorist group comes and slaughters people for whatever purpose then taking up arms to protect yourself and your property is okay.

What your not getting is that property disputes can be settled between people by negotiations, or by through courts. If property is being forcefully taken and the courts and negotiations fail, then you have the right to use violence.

[eyedrop]

What your not getting is that property disputes can be settled between people by negotiations, or by through courts. If property is being forcefully taken and the courts and negotiations fail, then you have the right to use violence.

And then his proposed court rules in his favour and your proposed court rules in his favour. (Why would a person who knows he is in the wrong agree to a fair court.) Then your suddenly back to force again.

Have any of you guys ever been to courts who aren't backed by force, (although now there are also the threat of going to a real court and get the same ruling if one part doesn't comply) in my minor experience it doesn't work at all.

[RGacky3]

No, it depends on how property rights are violated. If my neighbor pushes his property line 5 feet over onto mine then we will discuss it or ill sue him in a private court. If a some militant terrorist group comes and slaughters people for whatever purpose then taking up arms to protect yourself and your property is okay.

What your not getting is that property disputes can be settled between people by negotiations, or by through courts. If property is being forcefully taken and the courts and negotiations fail, then you have the right to use violence.

Taking up arms to protect people from being killed has nothing to do with property rights.

But in an Anarchist society, how are their courts? THeres no government right? Or is there ONLY government to protect property rights? What if I don't agree with property rights and the outcome they make? What if most people don't?

[Comrade Anarchist]

Taking up arms to protect people from being killed has nothing to do with property rights.

But in an Anarchist society, how are their courts? THeres no government right? Or is there ONLY government to protect property rights? What if I don't agree with property rights and the outcome they make? What if most people don't?

Taking up arms to protect your property only if your property is taken against your consent unjustifiably .

Courts and law can exist without governments. As private courts. Lawyers compete in a market where you choose the best lawyer that you can afford and through the free market the best will succeed. Courts are run as a company and you and the person you sue go to the court you wish, but both in agreement as to which court.

[Bud Struggle]

Courts and law can exist without governments. As private courts.

Yup. Happens all of the time.

[Ryke]

Courts and law can exist without governments. As private courts. Lawyers compete in a market where you choose the best lawyer that you can afford and through the free market the best will succeed. Courts are run as a company and you and the person you sue go to the court you wish, but both in agreement as to which court.

Functionally identical to some problematic aspects of government in what they offer, and potentially worse in what they seek in return and the way they operate.

Not to mention, how do you then go about enforcing the agreement that's reached? How do you even assume an agreement can be reached on what court will be used if the different private courts compete for profit? Each of them must be partial to the man that pays, or, if both are required to pay, seek paymet first. Not to mention, if those courts have actual power but aren't coordinated with each other and in fact compete, there's the issue of appeals and contestations.

[Drace]

Lawyers compete in a market where you choose the best lawyer that you can afford and through the free market the best will succeed. Courts are run as a company and you and the person you sue go to the court you wish, but both in agreement as to which court.

Oh great, as if buying rights isn't already a problem now.


Violence is never justified. Every revolution could have easily occurred if the people just withdrew their support from the government. The government has no police unless the people give them to them, the government has no military unless the people give it to them.

How idealist!
Ever heard of military dictatorships? Which you accuse the USSR of being? And yet you say that government has no power and no means to protect that power unless we agree to it?

And this completely ignores the material conditions and as to why and how individuals make up the military and the police force.

How else would you go around overthrowing monarchies?

[Ryke]

The problem is that it's superficially true that governments, even military dictatorships, ultimately rest on social cohesion and the "cooperation" (big quotation marks right there) of the people. Ultimately this cooperation is forced through passive and not-so-passive systems of coercion and oppression which ultimately prevent a large part of the population from meaningfully acting upon their disagreement and strongly encourages some of the people to directly dish out or help dish out this coercion and oppression. And you're technically free to express yourself as you wish and act however you want when someone points a gun to your head, or threatens to do so. Same if they threaten to hit you. Most ancaps ultimately fall into the trap of ignoring how limiting possibilities and choices (whether through nonviolent means or with the threat of violence) is a form of oppression. In short, they only recognise negative liberties as a necessity for freetom, not positive liberties.

And, well, more to the point, a police force which does not have the consent of the people can still hit or shoot them. And within the military or police, anyone who strongly dissents has a strong tendency to fear the rest of the apparatus, and this is the case regardless of whether or not a large number of them dissent, because they can't read minds, and a real attempt to communicate on the subject could lead to their deaths.

Opposition to violence should be an important principle, always. But complete pacifism ignores simple realities.

And it seems oddly dependent on the idea that democracies which pretend they exist only because the people as a whole will it, and legitimise their actions that way, aren't lying. An odd position to have.

[MarxSchmarx]

The problem is that it's superficially true that governments, even military dictatorships, ultimately rest on social cohesion and the "cooperation" (big quotation marks right there) of the people. Ultimately this cooperation is forced through passive and not-so-passive systems of coercion and oppression which ultimately prevent a large part of the population from meaningfully acting upon their disagreement and strongly encourages some of the people to directly dish out or help dish out this coercion and oppression.

This is a terribly dehumanizing understanding of the situation. It assumes that people, when faced with a choice of living in chains or being killed ("coerced" or "oppressed") versus standing up for their own convictions, will inevitably choose the former.

Not only is it dehumanizing, but it assumes the "masses" (of which, I am sure, you are not) are like cattle - incapable of understanding anything except brute force that threatens their safety.

We have a proud history of resisting such attempts at coercion and cooperation. Perhaps our biggest difference is that the lesson you seem to draw from such acts of resistance is one of futility, whereas I draw the lesson that it can be done.



And, well, more to the point, a police force which does not have the consent of the people can still hit or shoot them. And within the military or police, anyone who strongly dissents has a strong tendency to fear the rest of the apparatus, and this is the case regardless of whether or not a large number of them dissent, because they can't read minds, and a real attempt to communicate on the subject could lead to their deaths.


Except that history shows such efforts don't last long. Just look at Vietnam, where the American-backed junta thought it could impose its will through napalm and secret police and village massacres and fire bombings and apache helicopters and everything in between. Against a people sufficiently determined, what the few clowns, like the South Vietnamese elite, do or don't do and rub shoulders with is ultimately irrelevant and futile.

[Ryke]

This is a terribly dehumanizing understanding of the situation. It assumes that people, when faced with a choice of living in chains or being killed ("coerced" or "oppressed") versus standing up for their own convictions, will inevitably choose the former.

Not only is it dehumanizing, but it assumes the "masses" (of which, I am sure, you are not) are like cattle - incapable of understanding anything except brute force that threatens their safety.

We have a proud history of resisting such attempts at coercion and cooperation. Perhaps our biggest difference is that the lesson you seem to draw from such acts of resistance is one of futility, whereas I draw the lesson that it can be done.




Except that history shows such efforts don't last long. Just look at Vietnam, where the American-backed junta thought it could impose its will through napalm and secret police and village massacres and fire bombings and apache helicopters and everything in between. Against a people sufficiently determined, what the few clowns, like the South Vietnamese elite, do or don't do and rub shoulders with is ultimately irrelevant and futile.

I never said the opposite of any of that - and I never said that I was or would be exempt from the situation, or that it was permanently and completely effective. I was describing (well, trying to) why some consider that simply not supporting authority will end it, and what that point of view doesn't take into account. It's absolutely true that people of all kinds can, do and must rise up if any kind of rigid authority is to fall, and that they can succeed.

I just focused on the point that absence of support will not end authority, because it also props itself up and manupulates circumstances so that people, of their own free will or not, support it (and I'm not exempt from that. I'd have a very hard time right now if I completely ceased supporting capitalism or the State, and if I were under a harsher system, I probably would be as susceptible as anyone else to do as it says on a daily basis, unless an organised and effective resistance were present or being set up, and even then, it's a very dangerous thing to do and I'm not just magically better than anyone else at setting everything aside, to participate in that), and that what is needed to topple it is strong, concrete opposition, which is by necessity forceful and likely to be at least somewhat violent.

So basically, I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I wasn't under the impression I'd said the opposite. I said that lack of support alone could not (or could very rarely) be sufficient resistance, because of the coercion I mentioned. That people can rise to overcome this and achieve great results is absolutely true. They have and can. But I was arguing against the idea that they can do so simply through no longer recognizing government, in a peaceful manner. I don't think that's the case, and I expect neither do you. I think violence ought to be limited whenever possible, but it may well be necessary. A dedication to non-violence is good. Pacifism is idealistic to the point that I could almost never see it work in reality.

[MarxSchmarx]

I never said the opposite of any of that - and I never said that I was or would be exempt from the situation, or that it was permanently and completely effective. I was describing (well, trying to) why some consider that simply not supporting authority will end it, and what that point of view doesn't take into account. It's absolutely true that people of all kinds can, do and must rise up if any kind of rigid authority is to fall, and that they can succeed.

I just focused on the point that absence of support will not end authority, because it also props itself up and manupulates circumstances so that people, of their own free will or not, support it (and I'm not exempt from that. I'd have a very hard time right now if I completely ceased supporting capitalism or the State, and if I were under a harsher system, I probably would be as susceptible as anyone else to do as it says on a daily basis, unless an organised and effective resistance were present or being set up, and even then, it's a very dangerous thing to do and I'm not just magically better than anyone else at setting everything aside, to participate in that), and that what is needed to topple it is strong, concrete opposition, which is by necessity forceful and likely to be at least somewhat violent.

So basically, I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I wasn't under the impression I'd said the opposite. I said that lack of support alone could not (or could very rarely) be sufficient resistance, because of the coercion I mentioned. That people can rise to overcome this and achieve great results is absolutely true. They have and can. But I was arguing against the idea that they can do so simply through no longer recognizing government, in a peaceful manner. I don't think that's the case, and I expect neither do you. I think violence ought to be limited whenever possible, but it may well be necessary. A dedication to non-violence is good. Pacifism is idealistic to the point that I could almost never see it work in reality.

Fair enough. At issue is how we empower people to resist the coercion you describe. If I understand what you are saying, burying ones head in the sand with respect to authoritarian and hierarchical social structures is a dead end. That seems fairly uncontroversial.

Perhaps the real question, then, should be what makes people feel empowered to resist this coercion. Ultimately, such resistance needs to be appreciated by people in their every day struggles. I'd posit that actions like strikes and building alternative social institutions like free clinics, over and over again, serve at the very least a didactic purpose of helping people realize that not only do they not need the state apparatus or capitalism (the "ignoring authority" part) but also simultaneously empower them that they can be agents of serious social change. Indeed, although I can respect the point of view of people who disagree, by both withdrawing legitimacy to the power structure and creating a new society "out of the shell of the old", such a strategy continue to strike me as far more empowering than any alternatives