Violence

[Pretty Flaco]

I want to know your opinions on violence.

When is it justifiable? Is it justifiable? How far can violence go before just becoming the art of pigs? And is violence ever the only method of opposing oppression?

[Burn A Flag]

Well, violence is easily justified in the fight against fascism. Violence directly against the capitalist especially is just fine. However, even violence against other reactionary elements like the petit-bourgeois, police, and military is fine since it strengthens our cause. However, terrorist attacks that kill workers should not be tolerated.

I think violence is the only method of fighting opression as well. Civil disobedience is a nice concept, and works when compromising with capitalists like Gandhi and Mandela did. However, we want to destroy the system so no way that is going to happen peacefully. Those in power will do anything to stay there.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

In revolutionary situations most of the violence comes from the reaction. Ruling classes react with bitter, extreme destructive fury to any attempt to dismantle their system.

I used to be a pacifist and I've struggled with this issue. I hate violence myself but I feel the working class cannot deny itself any tools or weapons in the struggle. My understanding is that even Gandhi's use of "satyagraha" non-violent resistance was more of a tactic than a strategy. At times it led to some fairly extreme violence itself.

A philosophy of total non-violence won't hold up, it has too many internal contradictions.

Having said this I very much dislike violence.Humanity is in the grip of a superannuated but extremely violent system. Its in terminal decline but its death throes could go on for decades.

[Optiow]

Look, in my opinion, violence should only be used when it needs to be. If things can be accomplished without it, then that is the way it should go.

But when violence needs to be used, I believe it should be used in self defense - against fascist scum and other right wing people who would do us harm. But I do not support violence being used when it is not in a self defense action.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Well, violence is easily justified in the fight against fascism. Violence directly against the capitalist especially is just fine. However, even violence against other reactionary elements like the petit-bourgeois, police, and military is fine since it strengthens our cause. However, terrorist attacks that kill workers should not be tolerated.

I think violence is the only method of fighting opression as well. Civil disobedience is a nice concept, and works when compromising with capitalists like Gandhi and Mandela did. However, we want to destroy the system so no way that is going to happen peacefully. Those in power will do anything to stay there.

Is it a terrorist attack just because it killed workers? I think we've got to define what workers are really on the side of the proletarian struggle & not upholders of the capitalist system. In some areas the police can be considered as working class, but they're not our ally & rather the enemy to us, in which we see the necessity of fighting against them.

[Dean]

Look beneath the surface of the city and you shall uncover a teeming cesspool of human emotions gone sour
A planet where nightmares have become reality - witness the brutality

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Violence is a tool, use it appropriately.

[4kmrx]

Violence is a tool, use it appropriately.

Thats so true some times finishing brush is needed and sometimes jackhammer is not enough.

[scarletghoul]

Pacifism (and related problems) generally stems from a lack of understanding of what violence actually is, including the inherent violence in the system.

Seeing as this is in philosophy, it seems fitting to recommend Slavoj Zizek's book on Violence. It's very good and imo essential for understanding things

[Queercommie Girl]

There is a difference between pacifism, the idea that generally speaking violence is bad but also see the use of violence in some situations, and absolute pacifism that rejects violence completely in any form.

I'm a pacifist, not an absolute pacifist.

[meow]

violence is oppression. violence even in self defence is enforcing yourself on others.

whoops actually i am not pacifist.

try again. violence except in self defence is enforcing yourself on others and wrong. eerr no. does not sound correct either.

violence except in self defence with very broad meaning of self defence is wrong. maybe?

how about violence against oppression even when not in self defence is a ok?

ok. violence when used in defence of oneself or others is ok. defence includes preemptive attacks on the state. because the state uses violence everyday. other violence including aggression that does not help anyone is wrong. maybe.

a difficult question with perhaps the only easy answer is pacifism. but thats wrong.

[4kmrx]

Violence is instinctive and natural to us as animals, sooner that is accepted better for then we can really understand meaning and power of violence and use it rightly. There is no such thing as revolution whit out violence, a singing revolutionary is as bad joke as singing cowboy.

[Queercommie Girl]

Violence is instinctive and natural to us as animals, sooner that is accepted better for then we can really understand meaning and power of violence and use it rightly. There is no such thing as revolution whit out violence, a singing revolutionary is as bad joke as singing cowboy.

You sound like a Social Darwinist who believes the law of the jungle should apply to human society.

Humans are qualitatively apart from other animals. This point is quite clearly pointed out by Lenin.

In the Chinese context at least, Social Darwinists are always politically and econmically right-wing, there has never been a left-wing Social Darwinist to my knowledge.

[Who?]

I feel like violence is best used to cause economic damage to the ruling class or as a tool for protesting.

For example in response to the war in Iraq one might want to vandalize a symbol of American imperialism. Another example is the ELF tactic of setting fire to a building owned and operated by the ruling class in order to cause economic harm.

However I feel that violence against other human beings is generally unacceptable. If people get hurt or die it will considerably hurt our cause.

[Queercommie Girl]

I feel like violence is best used to cause economic damage to the ruling class or as a tool for protesting.

For example in response to the war in Iraq one might want to vandalize a symbol of American imperialism. Another example is the ELF tactic of setting fire to a building owned and operated by the ruling class in order to cause economic harm.

However I feel that violence against other human beings is generally unacceptable. If people get hurt or die it will considerably hurt our cause.

I basically agree. I do not oppose violence completely, but I oppose the idea that human violence is similar to animal violence.

Violence is useful if it clearly fits in with a socialist programme. Otherwise it is not. And human violence is fundamentally different from animal violence due to its more conscious, directed and organised nature.

[4kmrx]

You sound like a Social Darwinist who believes the law of the jungle should apply to human society.

Humans are qualitatively apart from other animals. This point is quite clearly pointed out by Lenin.

In the Chinese context at least, Social Darwinists are always politically and econmically right-wing, there has never been a left-wing Social Darwinist to my knowledge.

Jumping conclusions are we ? Or is that star a fight quata of day is not yet full ? Yes human are qualitatively apart from animals but we are not part from them instinct wise. Lenin BTW was not in opposition violence, he for instance value browning automatics, a tools of violence very highly. There is no possibilty be able to use violence right way if you do not understand where that comes from. Violence comes from with in us.

[Queercommie Girl]

Jumping conclusions are we ? Or is that star a fight quata of day is not yet full ? Yes human are qualitatively apart from animals but we are not part from them instinct wise. Lenin BTW was not in opposition violence, he for instance value browning automatics, a tools of violence very highly. There is no possibilty be able to use violence right way if you do not understand where that comes from. Violence comes from with in us.

Well it appears that you are the one who is jumping to conclusions here. Since I did not call you a social darwinist, I said your use of words, in comparing humans directly with animals, seems like those used by social darwinists.

Ok, I know Lenin didn't completely oppose violence. It's obvious. Not a single genuine socialist would be an absolute pacifist. In fact I wrote about the reactionary nature of absolute pacifism in another thread here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/turn-other-cheek-t138946/index.html

That's not what I was talking about. I was raising an issue with your direct comparison of human violence with animal violence. Because you sound like violence is an intrinsic end rather than just a political tool that has some purpose if it is in the right hands. This is wrong. As Mao said, ultimately the purpose of revolutionary war is to end all wars, not to glorify in violence and warfare like some reactionary feudal warlord.

[4kmrx]

Basic nature of human violence is instinctive, instinctive responce to threat ie. battered wife may end up killing her abusive husband instinctively. There are numerous academic studies over this subject. That what set us apart animals is that we can act violently un-instinctively. Better you understand instinctive violence and instinctive responces to violence more efficiently you can use violence as political tool. All wars may end but violence will not disappear not until man disappears.

[Queercommie Girl]

Basic nature of human violence is instinctive, instinctive responce to threat ie. battered wife may end up killing her abusive husband instinctively. There are numerous academic studies over this subject. That what set us apart animals is that we can act violently un-instinctively. Better you understand instinctive violence and instinctive responces to violence more efficiently you can use violence as political tool. All wars may end but violence will not disappear not until man disappears.

In a communist society violence may not disappear absolutely, but it is certainly possible for it to essentially disappear, just like it is possible for income inequality to essentially disappear in a communist society.

The principle of "each according to his/her needs" would not be possible absolutely either, because we can never arrive at a post-scarcity world, but it can be closely approximated. Same with the end of violence.

[scarletghoul]

Violence is instinctive and natural to us as animals.
I think you should read some Marx.

[M-26-7]

Socialism is a consequentialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism) ideology, not a deontological one. It judges actions not by whether they are right or wrong in themselves, but by whether or not they lead to socialism. Most socialists are not strict consequentialists, and they also have other moral commitments that they take into consideration, beyond their commitment to socialism, when they judge the ethics of an action. However, if a person had a general rule against all violence, that would leave no room for consequentialism, and therefore in my opinion it would leave no room for that person to be a socialist. The idea that violence is always wrong is more akin to religious deontological ethics than to socialist consequentialist ethics. Nothing is always wrong.

Short version: I think it is impossible for a socialist to have a general opinion about violence. It largely depends on what the violence is for, and whom the violence is perpetrated against (ruling class or working class), and to what end (progress or reaction).

[Queercommie Girl]

Socialism is a consequentialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism) ideology, not a deontological one. It judges actions not by whether they are right or wrong in themselves, but by whether or not they lead to socialism. Most socialists are not strict consequentialists, and they also have other moral commitments that they take into consideration, beyond their commitment to socialism, when they judge the ethics of an action. However, if a person had a general rule against all violence, that would leave no room for consequentialism, and therefore in my opinion it would leave no room for that person to be a socialist. The idea that violence is always wrong is more akin to religious deontological ethics than to socialist consequentialist ethics. Nothing is always wrong.

Short version: I think it is impossible for a socialist to have a general opinion about violence. It largely depends on what the violence is for, and whom the violence is perpetrated against (ruling class or working class), and to what end (progress or reaction).

Short version: you reject absolute pacifism.

I don't think there are many people in the world who are actually absolute pacifists, socialist or not.

But you made a mistake. You are correct in saying that socialists cannot believe in a general rule against all violence, but this is not the same as saying that socialists cannot have a general opinion about violence. "Believe in a general rule" is not the same as "have a general opinion". The two are fundamentally different matters. One can have a general opinion about violence, it might even be a wholly negative one, without holding any kind of dogmatic overall "rule" against violence in the absolute pacifist sense.

For instance, I believe that generally speaking violence is not a good thing, but it can serve a positive purpose in some situations. I believe in a communist society violence would be very uncommon. This doesn't make me an absolute pacifist because I believe in no general rule about violence one way or another.

[4kmrx]

I think you should read some Marx.

Have all ready read but philosophical or political writings does not dictate over how we have been evolutionary build. Basic form of violence is based on animal instinct only by understanding this evolutionary fact one can actually resist impulses of "animal-man."

[M-26-7]

Short version: you reject absolute pacifism.

I don't think there are many people in the world who are actually absolute pacifists, socialist or not.

But you made a mistake. You are correct in saying that socialists cannot believe in a general rule against all violence, but this is not the same as saying that socialists cannot have a general opinion about violence. "Believe in a general rule" is not the same as "have a general opinion". The two are fundamentally different matters. One can have a general opinion about violence, it might even be a wholly negative one, without holding any kind of dogmatic overall "rule" against violence in the absolute pacifist sense.

For instance, I believe that generally speaking violence is not a good thing, but it can serve a positive purpose in some situations. I believe in a communist society violence would be very uncommon. This doesn't make me an absolute pacifist because I believe in no general rule about violence one way or another.

I do not just reject absolute pacifism, I reject any general opinion on violence.

Imagine a world in which 99% of all violence is done against the ruling class, for the purpose of complete liberation of humanity from classes. In such a universe, would you still be of the opinion that "generally speaking violence is not a good thing"?

If your opinion has changed, then I would suggest that your "general opinion about violence" was not an opinion about violence itself, but about the uses that violence is most often put to in this universe/world/society.

[Queercommie Girl]

I do not just reject absolute pacifism, I reject any general opinion on violence.

Imagine a world in which 99% of all violence is done against the ruling class, for the purpose of complete liberation of humanity from classes. In such a universe, would you still be of the opinion that "generally speaking violence is not a good thing"?

If your opinion has changed, then I would suggest that your "general opinion about violence" was not an opinion about violence itself, but about the uses that violence is most often put to in this universe/world/society.

But I don't think your hypothetical scenario is realistic.

You can imagine anything you like but if they are not realistic than they are largely useless.

Historically speaking, the level of violence caused by socialist revolutions is far lower than the level of violence created by wars between capitalist nation-states.

Also, opinions can change with time, just because I have a general opinion about something doesn't mean it is a metaphysical opinion that cannot change with time, it just means I have an opinion about violence in general and not just specific instances of violence.

[M-26-7]

You can imagine anything you like but if they are not realistic than they are largely useless.

No, it's not realistic. Most hypothetical scenarios used to test ethical systems are not (see for example the Trolley Problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem)). That is not usually thought to diminish from their usefulness, however.

[Queercommie Girl]

No, it's not realistic. Most hypothetical scenarios used to test ethical systems are not (see for example the Trolley Problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem)). That is not usually thought to diminish from their usefulness, however.

I guess that's one reason why materialist Marxism generally rejects idealistic ethics.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

The moste common type of violence is the actuall class-system. Workers have a lower axpected living age, are more often likly to die at theire work and suffers frome psysichal and mental problems and to that ad the more direct violence in form of being beated up, raped happens more often at workers.

Pascifism is the creation of idealism and liberals, who dont see the problem with current society up frome theire ivory towers and therefor thinks that it would be good if the people didnt struggle so much.

[Buitraker]

Its only justified to defend

[Apoi_Viitor]

I don't believe in using violence as a means to achieve political goals, and it certainly terrifies me, that so many here seem to support it. The reason for my skepticism, is that I feel in any leftist revolution, where the members/participants feel it acceptable to attack, kill political opponents, will likely revert into an opressive Red Bureaucrocy. I feel that once a person has deemed violence against the state/capitalists acceptable, soon after, it will be acceptable to attack any capitalist sympathizer or indoctrinated worker. I think it's highly unlikely freedom from capitalism will ever be obtained by gunpoint, but I think it's highly likely that totalitarian institutions will arise, instead.

[HammerAlias]

Violence towards the institution and the elites can be justified as they are the core reasons for oppression and tyranny. Against the general public, the workers can never be justified.

[MellowViper]

For many sane human beings, when they see violence, it traumatizes them for life. It can cause PTSD. Violence is just one of those insane things humans do and regret after the fact, for the most part. Its not really natural for most people. People raised to see violence as being something normal usually live in genocidal, warring countries. Anyway, violence only makes sense to me for self defense.