Violent Action

[Sensible Socialist]

Would you be for, even willing to engage it, violent action against the state and/or large corporations? I'm referring to the simple, such as left-wing graffiti, to the larger, such as the disruption of the capitalist and/or political proccess? I'll leave the topic a bit vague in order to promote a wide range of discussion, rather than "is blowing shit up cool?"

As a precautionary note, however, no one should describe illegal activities they've participated in. Keep it on the safe side.

[Manic Impressive]

If I had the opportunity I would decapitate the British royal family with a machete.

[Comrade1]

Would you be for, even willing to engage it, violent action against the state and/or large corporations? I'm referring to the simple, such as left-wing graffiti, to the larger, such as the disruption of the capitalist and/or political proccess? I'll leave the topic a bit vague in order to promote a wide range of discussion, rather than "is blowing shit up cool?"

As a precautionary note, however, no one should describe illegal activities they've participated in. Keep it on the safe side.
Lets just say if I and a politican were in the same room with a gun next to me. Things wouldent go down too well.

[The Man]

Would you be for, even willing to engage it, violent action against the state and/or large corporations? I'm referring to the simple, such as left-wing graffiti, to the larger, such as the disruption of the capitalist and/or political proccess? I'll leave the topic a bit vague in order to promote a wide range of discussion, rather than "is blowing shit up cool?"

As a precautionary note, however, no one should describe illegal activities they've participated in. Keep it on the safe side.

Absolutely not. Isn't the point of anarchism to go against exploitation and coercion? But were gonna use violent coercion to get our ideas across?

[Comrade1]

Absolutely not. Isn't the point of anarchism to go against exploitation and coercion? But were gonna use violent coercion to get our ideas across?
Look we cant sit 8 billion people down and say "excuse me, mr. millionaire, can you please stop exploiting.

[Widerstand]

There's no such thing as "violence against property".

[Paulappaul]

Isn't the point of anarchism to go against exploitation and coercion? But were gonna use violent coercion to get our ideas across?

Because it's the right thing to do. When we see a world of exploited people passively waiting and watching is just as bad as being the exploiter. It's coercion against the those exploiters and in an Anarchist society generally those who exploit others will be stopped, if by physical force if necessary.

[FreeFocus]

The system is violent. I don't support any attacks on civilians (basically that equates to people who aren't involved with the military, police, political office, business positions, etc), but otherwise, I don't oppose violence at all. At that point it's just a matter of what is strategically prudent.

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

Absolutely not. Isn't the point of anarchism to go against exploitation and coercion? But were gonna use violent coercion to get our ideas across?
ohdeargod.
What, then, do you propose? Do you think the existing states have not had a history of violently shutting down pacifist ''opposition''? They don't take kindly to our stated goals, obviously. They certainly aren't going to hesitate to violently silence us, especially if we make it easier for them by saying from the get-go that we will not try to stop them by any means other than words and peaceful protests.

Again, what do you propose?
''It's wrong to use coercion blahblahblah'' isn't an answer to the question, it's a moral stance.

[Comrade1]

The system is violent. I don't support any attacks on civilians (basically that equates to people who aren't involved with the military, police, political office, business positions, etc), but otherwise, I don't oppose violence at all. At that point it's just a matter of what is strategically prudent.
Atleast violence is an area where marxists and anarchists come together :lol:

[thesadmafioso]

I really don't think you can take a question like this and treat it in a manner where it is presumed that some absolutist standard can be applied to an answer. Certain occasions will arise where in violence will overtake a more peace course of action in regards to possible value, and others where in violence will bring about no meaningful political results. Being for something and being willing to do something are very different, and they alter the question dramatically as well. We should accept the reality that violent means can be more effectual than not, and that the opposite can be just as true. Willingness should stem out of this, but that is not equatable to complete support for politically charged violence.

In short, political context is a deciding factor when attempting to determine the value which such measures would have, and you really should not be for or against violence itself as it has limited applications and as it is simply a conduit for ideology. To either deny or advocate categorically for either side of this equation is to ignore the reality of the political process.

[human strike]

There's no such thing as "violence against property".

And if it does then I'm all for it. Violence is aesthetically powerful. It can communicate something words and peaceful action simply can't.


Perhaps the greatest attack on the image of consumerism happens in these frenzied moments when a tsunami of euphoric looting bursts through the windows of megacorporate stores. In a blitz, property is communized – and all take freely what each desires. Local, independent and mom-and-pop stores are conspicuously spared in these times of calculated plundering because what is happening here is an intentional strategy of expropriating the expropriators, of overthrowing the law of scarcity with the creed of surplus and, as Sotirios Bahtsetzis observes, of “rendering visible the emptiness and random replaceability of consumerist goods.” It is on this last point, that acts of looting become like sophisticated image attacks. Elated pillagers present the megacorporations with a lose-lose conundrum: either stand by while pictures of their ransacked stores show the world how they are despised; or renovate their premises, restock their shelves, pretend as if nothing happened and admit to the farce of consumerism by demonstrating that consumer goods are worthless because they are not unique, because they may be identically replaced with ease.

What acts of vandalism do is show that the existing regime is vulnerable. When images of burnt-out cop cars in Toronto and smashed windows at Millbank in London were broadcast around the world, what did people see? Did they see a system in control? Hell no. They saw a physical manifestation of an order in crisis. They saw a government unable to govern. They saw that resistance is possible.

They saw a little bit of anarchy. ;)

[chegitz guevara]

This thread should be deleted. NOW!

[RedHal]

Absolutely not. Isn't the point of anarchism to go against exploitation and coercion? But were gonna use violent coercion to get our ideas across?

Dear Mr Bourgeoisie,
please stop exploiting your workers.

love,
Lycanthrope