Violence vs nonviolence

[SouthernBelle82]

So I guess this is the appropriate place for this. If not I apologize to the mods and admins. So earlier tonight I got into a discussion with someone about violence vs nonviolence where it concerns politics and responding. This person brought up various events where they thought violence was the right response. I see it differently and am against violence to solutions. And if you're going by the accepted definition it's terrorism.

I think you can defend yourself without stooping like that. Of course this person called me an evil ***** and a hypocrite. They said I was a hypocrite because I'm working on getting a criminal justice degree now to become a fed. You don't always have to use your gun and you can find other solutions. So I'm just curious as to your thoughts. There are plenty of examples of both but I think in the long run I'd rather be with Ghandi and my own conscious about it.

[Invincible Summer]

I think the reason why they called you a hypocrite was not because feds shoot people, but rather because the bourgeois state inflicts violence (physical, economic, social) against its people.

Some anarchists (possibly Marxists) argue that these forms of economic/social/sometimes physical violence legitimizes violence against the state, as it is in defense.

What people don't really talk about is the armed wing of social movements. People always talk about how peaceful MLK was w/ his civil rights movement, or how Philippines' People's Power movement was "nonviolent protest," and how Apartheid was defeated through non-violent means.

This is all naivete and bourgeois propaganda.

All these movements had an armed struggle involved, albeit more underground. The Philippines had the New People's Army; South Africa had the Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation); Civil Rights had the Black Panthers and Black Liberation Army, to name a few. Violence in itself is foolhardy, yes. But violence combined with the will of a people for change is something else altogether. This is why "propaganda of the deed" hardly ever works - it is done without the context of a populous with a "heightened consciousness" so to speak.

If not to directly challenge the state, militant groups play the role of a foil. They give the more peaceful (and usually reformist) groups the advantage because these groups appear more reasonable in comparison to the armed guerillas.

So basically, violence is inseparable from social change. It just depends on what role it plays.




And you want to be a fed? Are you here to spy on us? :crying:

[SouthernBelle82]

I think the reason why they called you a hypocrite was not because feds shoot people, but rather because the bourgeois state inflicts violence (physical, economic, social) against its people.

Some anarchists (possibly Marxists) argue that these forms of economic/social/sometimes physical violence legitimizes violence against the state, as it is in defense.

What people don't really talk about is the armed wing of social movements. People always talk about how peaceful MLK was w/ his civil rights movement, or how Philippines' People's Power movement was "nonviolent protest," and how Apartheid was defeated through non-violent means.

This is all naivete and bourgeois propaganda.

All these movements had an armed struggle involved, albeit more underground. The Philippines had the New People's Army; South Africa had the Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation); Civil Rights had the Black Panthers and Black Liberation Army, to name a few. Violence in itself is foolhardy, yes. But violence combined with the will of a people for change is something else altogether. This is why "propaganda of the deed" hardly ever works - it is done without the context of a populous with a "heightened consciousness" so to speak.

If not to directly challenge the state, militant groups play the role of a foil. They give the more peaceful (and usually reformist) groups the advantage because these groups appear more reasonable in comparison to the armed guerillas.

So basically, violence is inseparable from social change. It just depends on what role it plays.




And you want to be a fed? Are you here to spy on us? :crying:

In an ideal world the police aren't supposed to fire upon people except to defend themselves. Of course every person and situation is different. I hope to never have to fire my weapon at someone, but I know that's naive. This person I was talking to said they had libertarianism in their beliefs but Marxism as well. Personally I don't see how you can have both. MLK's non-violent group as I understand it just responded to protect themselves if at all. Look for example at John Lewis. He, and those he was with, who were peacefully marching in Alabama got beat up so bad. You don't have the authority to take the law into your own hands. Even if you do (law enforcement for example) there are rules and regulations you're supposed to follow or you can get into serious trouble. Law enforcement are supposed to be held to a higher standard than your average citizen. If you get in trouble it's a lot harsher just because you have more legal authority to do things than your average citizen.

I disagree about militian groups. I think they're only there to cause trouble in the long run. Look at that right wing group that was arrested by the FBI not too long ago. Would you want them on your side? I don't think so with their ideology as extreme right wingers. I wouldn't want anything to do with them. I don't think violence is avoidable with social change but I wouldn't participate. It's going to happen if the social change is big enough to cause chaos. As far as your last question no lol I'm not here to spy. If I was I wouldn't be so open about my ideologies and openly claim I'm a communist. I'm not shy about my political ideologies because I have nothing to be ashamed of. On edit with militian groups I think that because you can't control them. They all have their own ideologies and their own standards for things. They're not under any one control like say the local police or the FBI or something.

[Scary Monster]

In an ideal world the police aren't supposed to fire upon people except to defend themselves. Of course every person and situation is different. I hope to never have to fire my weapon at someone, but I know that's naive. This person I was talking to said they had libertarianism in their beliefs but Marxism as well. Personally I don't see how you can have both. MLK's non-violent group as I understand it just responded to protect themselves if at all. Look for example at John Lewis. He, and those he was with, who were peacefully marching in Alabama got beat up so bad. You don't have the authority to take the law into your own hands. Even if you do (law enforcement for example) there are rules and regulations you're supposed to follow or you can get into serious trouble. Law enforcement are supposed to be held to a higher standard than your average citizen. If you get in trouble it's a lot harsher just because you have more legal authority to do things than your average citizen.

I disagree about militian groups. I think they're only there to cause trouble in the long run. Look at that right wing group that was arrested by the FBI not too long ago. Would you want them on your side? I don't think so with their ideology as extreme right wingers. I wouldn't want anything to do with them. I don't think violence is avoidable with social change but I wouldn't participate. It's going to happen if the social change is big enough to cause chaos. As far as your last question no lol I'm not here to spy. If I was I wouldn't be so open about my ideologies and openly claim I'm a communist. I'm not shy about my political ideologies because I have nothing to be ashamed of. On edit with militian groups I think that because you can't control them. They all have their own ideologies and their own standards for things. They're not under any one control like say the local police or the FBI or something.

Like I said in a post i just made in another thread, the State (which, as we all know, is just a tool of the ruling class to enforce their existence) will do whatever is necessary to retain its power, such as the CIA/FBI or SWAT assassinations against Black Panthers and American Indian Movement members. Really, the cops do whatever they feel like, without getting in serious trouble. In numerous threads on this site, there are articles about cops grossly abusing and beating citizens without provocation. The worse cops get is suspension with pay and the courts always favor the cops, no matter how heinous their actions are. I think violence is definitely necessary for self-defense, since the ruling classes of any state will not just let their power and wealth be taken. This is evidenced countless times in all class struggles throughout history (black panthers, indian naxalites, etc).

By the way, why in the heck are you restricted? :lol:

[Jimmie Higgins]

We live in such a strange society - on the one hand, our rulers say we have to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan, we have to arm the police with more weapons and less restrictions, we have to have the death penalty. But then when we as regular people say we have to defend our churches from being bombed by the KKK, we have to defend our picket lines and ability to respect and decent wages at the job, we have to defend ourselves from racist or homophobic mobs, defend our brothers and sisters over seas from being bombed by the US, our rulers say we must only do this through non-violent means.

I think most justice and rights can be defended or won without violence, but at the same time people need to defend themselves. All class societies are divided between the rulers and ruled and in order for the rulers to maintain this arrangement, they use a lot of violence or implied violence. In the US, this is easy to see if you have ever been at the wrong end of a cop or just read the news about US foreign interventions. It's the same with China or the USSR - tanks rolled out if people took to the streets. In feudalism, disobedience to the caste-order of things meant floggings or worse.

Just like victors always write the history, the rulers always get to determine what violence is legitimate and what violence is illegitimate.

[Philzer]

Hi Jimmie, how are you?


Just like victors always write the history, the rulers always get to determine what violence is legitimate and what violence is illegitimate.

Consensus.

Kind regards.

[RGacky3]

As far as justification of violence each person has his own morality when it comes to that (but many are also hypocrites when it comes to that).

However from a purely tactical viewpoint, I think violence should be avoided except for direct self defence. I think the best way is through things like strikes, occupations, sitins, resistance, disobedience, workplace takeover, squatting and the such, then the ruling class is put into a very sticky position.

If you just start out with violence, unless you have clear already public support its just gonna be counter productive, and if you ahve already clear public support, starting out with violence would'nt be neccessary.

I think a good example of this is some of the old IWW strikes, this was at at a time where strikers were shot at by police, the wobblies would strike peacefully and non violently, but they also carried guns, so when the cops came, commanded them to break up the strike, the wobblies refused, then the cops fired and the wobblies shot back.

[SouthernBelle82]

Like I said in a post i just made in another thread, the State (which, as we all know, is just a tool of the ruling class to enforce their existence) will do whatever is necessary to retain its power, such as the CIA/FBI or SWAT assassinations against Black Panthers and American Indian Movement members. Really, the cops do whatever they feel like, without getting in serious trouble. In numerous threads on this site, there are articles about cops grossly abusing and beating citizens without provocation. The worse cops get is suspension with pay and the courts always favor the cops, no matter how heinous their actions are. I think violence is definitely necessary for self-defense, since the ruling classes of any state will not just let their power and wealth be taken. This is evidenced countless times in all class struggles throughout history (black panthers, indian naxalites, etc).

By the way, why in the heck are you restricted? :lol:

Cops don't do whatever they want. They still have rules and regulations too and are supposed to be held to a higher standard. They're supposed to protect the community. There's a difference between self-defense and doing violence. Terrorism is never acceptable. Oh and as to your question with your smiley I can't tell if you're serious or not so I'm not going to respond to that until I know that. On edit as far as cops go you can't just put everyone in the group. Every cop is different, has different training and independent thoughts. It's also up to their leadership as to what the department will or won't tolerate in their department.

[SouthernBelle82]

We live in such a strange society - on the one hand, our rulers say we have to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan, we have to arm the police with more weapons and less restrictions, we have to have the death penalty. But then when we as regular people say we have to defend our churches from being bombed by the KKK, we have to defend our picket lines and ability to respect and decent wages at the job, we have to defend ourselves from racist or homophobic mobs, defend our brothers and sisters over seas from being bombed by the US, our rulers say we must only do this through non-violent means.

I think most justice and rights can be defended or won without violence, but at the same time people need to defend themselves. All class societies are divided between the rulers and ruled and in order for the rulers to maintain this arrangement, they use a lot of violence or implied violence. In the US, this is easy to see if you have ever been at the wrong end of a cop or just read the news about US foreign interventions. It's the same with China or the USSR - tanks rolled out if people took to the streets. In feudalism, disobedience to the caste-order of things meant floggings or worse.

Just like victors always write the history, the rulers always get to determine what violence is legitimate and what violence is illegitimate.

As I said in my other post there's a difference between doing terrorism and defending yourself. Defending yourself doesn't have to be violent. Why do people think violence is ever an answer to anything? It isn't. It doesn't always work and it only hurts people. People you may want on your side someday who is just your average citizen. Violence is never okay. Especially if you've experienced it yourself why would you want someone else to experience it? It's selfish. I like to think I have better ethics than that.

[Dimentio]

We should avoid moralising about things. As for violence, it should never be an easy decision to hurt, impair or kill another human being. In fact, when possible, non-violent solutions should be reached. The problem with violence is that it tend to legitimise itself as a solution, while at the same time serving to de-legitimise those who wield it in any other respect than as an extension of the violence.

And societies built on violence has usually been unstable and fallen as soon as the ruling faction is losing its monopoly on violence. Just look at Assyria, the Aztec Empire and the Third Reich.

[SouthernBelle82]

We should avoid moralising about things. As for violence, it should never be an easy decision to hurt, impair or kill another human being. In fact, when possible, non-violent solutions should be reached. The problem with violence is that it tend to legitimise itself as a solution, while at the same time serving to de-legitimise those who wield it in any other respect than as an extension of the violence.

And societies built on violence has usually been unstable and fallen as soon as the ruling faction is losing its monopoly on violence. Just look at Assyria, the Aztec Empire and the Third Reich.

And I wonder if the U.S. has so many issues because of all of our violence too whether it was in the beginning of invading the country and the treatment of Native Americans to currently with the wars we're in with Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. Wouldn't having so much violence be draining too whether physically and/or mentally? Oh and don't forget to look at Israel too.

[dubaba]

Violence should be used when all non violent solutions have failed.:thumbup1:

[Dimentio]

And I wonder if the U.S. has so many issues because of all of our violence too whether it was in the beginning of invading the country and the treatment of Native Americans to currently with the wars we're in with Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. Wouldn't having so much violence be draining too whether physically and/or mentally? Oh and don't forget to look at Israel too.

Probably. The USA is essentially a society where the army plays a very important role, and is probably continuously present in the subconcious level of society. Europe, which is less militarised and is a bit reminiscent of the pacified eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, has less issues with such things. Most Europeans are more local-patriotic than imperial-patriotic.

[Invincible Summer]

As I said in my other post there's a difference between doing terrorism and defending yourself.

But how does one define "terrorism?" I mean, the American gov't calls Islamic fundamentalist groups, FARC, etc "terrorists," but I'm sure they see themselves as "freedom fighters."

Conversely, the American military and various private paramilitary groups hired to fight for the USA see themselves as "freedom fighters," but on the receiving end, it's most likely seen as "terrorism," albeit with the rubber stamp approval of the American state.


Defending yourself doesn't have to be violent. Why do people think violence is ever an answer to anything? It isn't. It doesn't always work and it only hurts people. People you may want on your side someday who is just your average citizen. Violence is never okay. Especially if you've experienced it yourself why would you want someone else to experience it? It's selfish. I like to think I have better ethics than that.You're right, defense doesn't have to be violent, but if someone was holding you down and strangling you, wouldn't you take violent actions against them to get them to stop? That's what capitalism does - it strangles the working class in all the ways that I'm sure you're familiar with.

Pacifism alone can never change society.

And to be honest, your post is reeking of moral "superiority." In the West, we can afford to have this, sure. But I hope you don't look down on the militantcy of leftist groups in other parts of the world - their state structures are in such a way that militant action is almost a necessity. "Peaceful protest" is easily crushed. You think that people look at violence as the first and only solution? As the saying goes: Desperate times call for desperate measures.

[cska]

So I guess this is the appropriate place for this. If not I apologize to the mods and admins. So earlier tonight I got into a discussion with someone about violence vs nonviolence where it concerns politics and responding. This person brought up various events where they thought violence was the right response. I see it differently and am against violence to solutions. And if you're going by the accepted definition it's terrorism.

I think you can defend yourself without stooping like that. Of course this person called me an evil ***** and a hypocrite. They said I was a hypocrite because I'm working on getting a criminal justice degree now to become a fed. You don't always have to use your gun and you can find other solutions. So I'm just curious as to your thoughts. There are plenty of examples of both but I think in the long run I'd rather be with Ghandi and my own conscious about it.

I think there are two extremes that are the problem here. On the one hand, there are those that misinterpret "revolution" and will not accept any transition to a communist society that doesn't involve large-scale violence. On the other hand, you have a philosophy of working within the system and avoiding violence to achieve what is just.

Now, I don't think that getting a criminal justice degree to become a fed, (we could use some good public defenders) is hypocritical. Also, I agree that you don't always have to use your gun.

However, that does not mean that you should always avoid violence, as Gandhi did. In fact, Gandhi allowed the British empire to rule for several more decades and then allowed the brahmins and rich upper class in India to replace them. See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18623179/The-Philosophy-of-the-Bomb-Shaheed-Bhagat-Singh for a criticism by his opponents.

The problem is that the system is designed to perpetuate itself. Therefore, it is impossible to work within the system to truly achieve communism. Thus, you have to replace it, and this requires an active revolution. While this revolution might end up being bloodless (after all the soldiers in the military are working class people themselves), it will certainly be forceful.

[#FF0000]

In an ideal world the police aren't supposed to fire upon people except to defend themselves.

Well, that's totally irrelevant because the police are there specifically to preserve the existing order. Being a fed or a cop in a capitalist society means that your job is to preserve capitalism. So, to be a cop and be a communist would be hypocritical, without even having to talk about violence.

[Sentinel]

They said I was a hypocrite because I'm working on getting a criminal justice degree now to become a fed.


Why on earth would anyone claiming the name of revolutionary leftist want to become part of the bourgeois state's violence apparatus? I hope you enjoy OI, because your chance of getting unrestricted just vanished like a fart in Sahara.

[Demogorgon]

Only an idiot supports violence in of itself and in any situation where there are two equally effective solutions; one violent and the other nonviolent, the nonviolent one should always be chosen.

However it is regrettably the case that when the ruling class use force to maintain their position, it becomes necessary to shift them with force. This is not to justify childish acts of lashing out that have nothing to do with actually removing those in power, nor is it to justify use of excessive force, but ultimately I view it as not being terribly likely that a revolution can take place without any force at all. If it could, I would be ecstatic, but it just isn't that likely.

[LeftSideDown]

Why on earth would anyone claiming the name of revolutionary leftist want to become part of the bourgeois state's violence apparatus? I hope you enjoy OI, because your chance of getting unrestricted just vanished like a fart in Sahara.

Uh, well, I'm working on my MARXIST SOCIOLOGY degree and I am going to work for THE PEOPLE. Can I be unrestricted? :)

[Scary Monster]

Cops don't do whatever they want. They still have rules and regulations too and are supposed to be held to a higher standard. They're supposed to protect the community. There's a difference between self-defense and doing violence. Terrorism is never acceptable. Oh and as to your question with your smiley I can't tell if you're serious or not so I'm not going to respond to that until I know that. On edit as far as cops go you can't just put everyone in the group. Every cop is different, has different training and independent thoughts. It's also up to their leadership as to what the department will or won't tolerate in their department.

Oh no no, i wasnt bein sarcastic at all. I put the smiley face cuz i cant see why youre restricted. Youve never said anything that is capitalist or libertarian (thats what it seems like to me, at least). Now youre banned so im confused even more :p

Anyhoo, cops do whatever they want, and they get away with it everytime. Like ive said many times on this site, the courts always favor the cops, no matter how messed up their actions are against their victims or how well-documented it is. The worst they get is suspension without pay. For example, cops came up to this black teenager who wasnt any threat, just walkin down the street (he was an honor roll student actually) and asked him "where are the drugs?" then proceeded to harass and beat him. They got- supspension without pay, no matter how intense demonstrations against this was.

Yes, not all cops are like this. But, they will not testify against each other, no matter how "good" a cop is. This is because cops always "look out for each other". Ive especially learned this in class from my teacher who is an attorney (im a paralegal). Ive met cops who are a$$holes, but there are also just as many who are real cool. But when it comes down to it, all cops will look out for each other, because they want to have each other's backs on the streets. Cops do, effectively, do whatever they want.

[#FF0000]

Uh, well, I'm working on my MARXIST SOCIOLOGY degree and I am going to work for THE PEOPLE. Can I be unrestricted? :)

Oh sure let me just tell the admins abou- WAIT JUST A MINUTE HERE.

[Sentinel]

Uh, well, I'm working on my MARXIST SOCIOLOGY degree and I am going to work for THE PEOPLE. Can I be unrestricted? :)

Spamming can be fun, but it has consequences. Seeing that you have previously received a verbal warning for it, I'm issuing you with an infraction.

Have a nice day. :)