On political violence

[The Teacher]

I have often commented that political violence is the moral equivilent of holding a pistol to someone's head and screaming "Agreed with me!" To my mind, this type of activity is non only wrong, it feeds into a cycle of violence that is contrary to the proggression of society.

This is not to say that you should not defend yourself from political violence, but your action with be defensive, not ideological. The same can be said for avenging specific atrocities. But acts of terrorism or other violence conducted against people whose view differs from yours cannot be justified, either as an individual action or as a state policy.

A history of the world shows us that successful revolutions are both infrequent and short lived. They often involve the death of a good amount of the population. The results of this violent tend to be concentrated among the very poorest citizens.

Does anyone else agree that their is a strong differece between defensive and political violence?

[#FF0000]

Violence is a tactic. Sometimes it's useful, sometimes not. When it comes to the whole "urban guerilla" thing, it usually is not.

[Old Mole]

A revolution cannot be defensive, we must attack capital, not only defend ourselves against it. The religious myth about the good people always having to be victims is incompatible with revolutionary action. Nearly all manifestations of power can be considered as violence and I think that nearly all can also be regarded as political.

[Desperado]

I have often commented that political violence is the moral equivilent of holding a pistol to someone's head and screaming "Agreed with me!"

What if the alternative is to continue to be forced to agree with them? Would you say this to a slave?


A history of the world shows us that successful revolutions are both infrequent and short lived.Sadly, a history of the world shows us that successful oppressors are both frequent and long lived.


They often involve the death of a good amount of the population. The results of this violent tend to be concentrated among the very poorest citizens.And what about the alternative? World War I? World War II? The countless African famines? Revolutions are often violent, but so's the status quo, and history shows that revolution is the only feasible way to change the status quo.


Does anyone else agree that their is a strong differece between defensive and political violence?And what if I am defending myself from capitalism's exploitation? From the state keeping my family starved? From the men who say they own our land?

The personal is political. You cannot abstract "politics" and "ideology" away from everyday life. Ideologies are born from the situations we are in. When I defend myself this is a political act. Politics is not something in the ballot box, or in the newspapers, or in your head. It's the present social relations to which we are trapped.



But acts of terrorism or other violence conducted against people whose view differs from yours cannot be justified, either as an individual action or as a state policy.It is not that their "views differ". I have nothing wrong with somebody masturbating over the thought of genocide, or fantasising about a free market. But capitalism unfortunately isn't just an idea. It is alive, and inherently coercive - it relies on force. Under the illusions there is no true choice. Hence (if and when it is useful) I shall use force against it, just as I would defend myself from a murderer.

[Desperado]

A revolution cannot be defensive, we must attack capital, not only defend ourselves against it.

That's just semantics. If you use negative freedom - i.e I want to be free from capital - then "attacking" it is "defending" ourselves from it. So long as the enemy is coercive, the two words are basically the same. To (violently) "defend" from a murderer you must "attack".

[brigadista]

I have often commented that political violence is the moral equivilent of holding a pistol to someone's head and screaming "Agreed with me!" To my mind, this type of activity is non only wrong, it feeds into a cycle of violence that is contrary to the proggression of society.

This is not to say that you should not defend yourself from political violence, but your action with be defensive, not ideological. The same can be said for avenging specific atrocities. But acts of terrorism or other violence conducted against people whose view differs from yours cannot be justified, either as an individual action or as a state policy.

A history of the world shows us that successful revolutions are both infrequent and short lived. They often involve the death of a good amount of the population. The results of this violent tend to be concentrated among the very poorest citizens.

Does anyone else agree that their is a strong differece between defensive and political violence?

your post implies that in this situation there is equality of arms .

[hatzel]

Nearly all manifestations of power can be considered as violence

If I hadn't noticed that pretty much every mention of Hannah Arendt on this site is somewhat disparaging, I would have said something about this. As it is...those who know, know. Those who don't always have Google :rolleyes:

[W1N5T0N]

I think a successful revolution is a revolution in which civil opponents are not persecuted for giving their opinion...In the case of the russian revolution, what started out as a advancement for social freedom and better living conditions by multiple parties, which could have worked together, had the bolsheviks not decided to, literally, put a gun to every politicians head and say: bolsheviks or death! I mean, i dont think any of the other parties involved, like Mensheviks or SR's were prepared to that far. From that point on, a systematic use of terror on dissidents or freethinkers was exercised... my conscience just cannot let me agree to these tactics that the bolsheviks and the later communist party used to maintain control. As a libertarian socialist, terror is for me a sign for the immaturity and structural weaknesses within a revolution, or in this case for a post-rev society. Marx would never have agreed to the tactics implemented. to quote him: "Democracy is the way to socialism". And what the different parties had going on there resembled a form of democracy, as each party had great numbers of support (the bolsheviks were actually not even too hugely popular!) Now im curious what will be left of this once the hardcore bolsheviks/leninists/stalinists are through with this :cool:

[Old Mole]

That's just semantics. If you use negative freedom - i.e I want to be free from capital - then "attacking" it is "defending" ourselves from it. So long as the enemy is coercive, the two words are basically the same. To (violently) "defend" from a murderer you must "attack".
Well, what I was trying to say was more in the lines of revolutions not being merely reactive to oppression, they are results of the strikes of the well-organized proletariat (for-itself) I think about defense and offensive in the Clausewitzian way: defense as preserving, and offense as taking. Merely defending your position against capital should then be to avoid more repression, and the opposite, the offensive, should be to attack the positions of capital.

[PhoenixAsh]

I don't agree with you.

I think violence is negative or bad depending on the eye of te beholder. In the case of violence against the system I would argue its pretty much in self defence albeit perhaps proactively so.

[#FF0000]

Well, what I was trying to say was more in the lines of revolutions not being merely reactive to oppression, they are results of the strikes of the well-organized proletariat (for-itself) I think about defense and offensive in the Clausewitzian way: defense as preserving, and offense as taking. Merely defending your position against capital should then be to avoid more repression, and the opposite, the offensive, should be to attack the positions of capital.

I would still consider attacking capital to be an act of self-defense though.

[Old Mole]

If I hadn't noticed that pretty much every mention of Hannah Arendt on this site is somewhat disparaging, I would have said something about this. As it is...those who know, know. Those who don't always have Google :rolleyes:
Sorry to say this... but I dont care much for Arendt. But lets assume that I did and agreed with her theories and definitions I would see no contradiction, power should manifest itself when it is jeopordized, as violence. Sorry about the bad English, it is not my first language.

[Rusty Shackleford]

violence begets violence and the bourgeoisie bring a whole lotta violence to the table.

[Os Cangaceiros]

pretty much everything is political, really. A heated strike or prison riot is just as much "political violence" as a war or assassination is...the only thing that differs is scale.

[Ocean Seal]

We are at war with the ruling class. They are not willing to play nice. They will and have committed genocide to stay in power. They control all of the power. They aren't going to step down if the people ask them nicely, the will not step down if there are protests where we hold flowers to them. The only thing that scares them is losing money. General strikes, mass protests, systematic vandalism, attacks on infrastructure, riots, and armed movements--we're going to make this a better planet that way. Not by sitting home and contemplating abstract morality. And of course acts of violence cannot be conducted on the basis that someone doesn't think the same way that I do. Acts of violence are conducted on the basis that they have different interests than what I do. If someone runs up and tips a police vehicle and then attacks a parliamentary building or if striking workers burn down their workplace, I say let the bourgeoisie endure this violence, the same way that we endure theirs. Hit them where the money is, and then they'll realize that they're on the way out. Kings do not abdicate because it is the right thing to do, they abdicate because it is the only thing left to do.

[Comrade_Oscar]

I agree with you but when people are oppressed by the business owners and have little to no political power then how can we be heard. One might say peaceful protests but then our oppressors have the police (which are just puppets) attack us and suppress us. Violence must always be a tactic of last resort but we have been pushed about as far as we can go.

[The Teacher]

I agree with you but when people are oppressed by the business owners and have little to no political power then how can we be heard. One might say peaceful protests but then our oppressors have the police (which are just puppets) attack us and suppress us. Violence must always be a tactic of last resort but we have been pushed about as far as we can go.

I agree. State your position, stand your ground. Don't start fights...finish them. That is a better idea than "these guys are X, Y, and Z, so lets shoot them."

[W1N5T0N]

I don't agree with you.

I think violence is negative or bad

negative OR bad? dont you mean negative or positive? good or bad?

[Savage]

To my mind, this type of activity is non only wrong, it feeds into a cycle of violence that is contrary to the proggression of society.
By 'progression of society', I am assuming that you are referring to a communist revolution. Let's see what Engels has to say on the subject of a peaceful overthrow of capital,

''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.''

Revolutions are inherently authoritative acts, and in some cases, the expropriation of the bourgeoisie will require violence which could be classified as either political or defensive violence. However, communism does not replace the government of the bourgeois state with an equally despotic regime, it continuously moves towards the establishment of a stateless society wherein the social relation of capital is completely changed. If you object to a minoritarian state purging it's political enemies (some would call this authoritarianism) then you should have no objection to the communist task, if you reject violence completely then you may object to some of the measures taken in a proletarian revolution.

[Tablo]

Often what is referred to as direct action is considered political violence. I disagree property destruction is actually violence. Whatever the case I do believe political violence is justified when it is in self-defense. Fighting capitalism is self-defense by workers. I do think stuff like urban guerrilla attacks on the state are pointless and ineffective though.

[starmix]

Revolutionary violence is not an attempt to coerce people into agreeing with you. Revolutionary violence is an attempt to overthrow a violent and oppressive system.
Let's take only one facet of the currently dominant political system, namely imperialism. Is violence detestable? Surely it is. But if by a small amount of domestic violence we could prevent the total destruction of foreign countries including slaughter of civilians on a huge scale (Vietnam, iraq, afghanistan etc) then we ought to commit that violence even if we find it distasteful. And this is not to mention the domestic oppression perpetuated by the dominant contemporary governments.
Political violence is justified, in my view, because its goal is to prevent future violence and oppression on a massive scale.

[ZrianKobani]

I think too many have it in their head that revolution must be by arms or not be at all. This might be the case in some places but in the U.S., such action isn't yet needed; we have free speech and the ability to organize and run third parties. Regardless of whether elections are "bourgeous" or not, armed conflict can't be justified and won't be accepted by the public until those forums of discontent are completely snuffed out.

[AntifaArnhem]

Violence is imbedded in every society, everything around you can be seen as violence. Rules, laws, religion, work etc. etc.

Rules, rules are mostly made in agreement with a bunch of people. As soon as you made a rule with a couple of friends you'll have to follow those rules. If you do not follow those rules you'll probably get a sanction, so even if you agree with rules they are a form of force and force is ultimatly a form of violence.

Laws, laws are always made by people from above (the Man/ government) so they are meant to force people to follow the 'proper' line of how others would like to see society. At one (or several) point(s) in your life you'll find yourself in the position you're NOT doing something (like driving through a red sign) because you're afraid you'll get a fine. Because of this fear (even if it's minor) you'll walk in line. Fear is a form of violence.

Religion, religion is often used to harm others or as an excuse to harm others. So religion is an excuse for violence. But even the religious people who think they use religion in a good way, like charity and stuff, are doing it because they think they'll go to heaven. Or if they don't they think they'll go to hell. This fear of going to hell is utlimatly violent as fear is a form of violence.

Work, well... let's just say no body likes to work. If we had the privilege not to work we probably wouldn't. But everybody needs to work because if we don't we'll probably starve. So in nowadays society everybody is forced to work in one of the most violent ways: Work or starve!

We are even forced to vote even though we don't beleive in it. It's not that we have to vote, we have the 'freedom' to stay home on election days but if you don't vote others say you shouldn't whine either if there are bad dicisions being made.

(More of this can be find in the ABC of Anarchism, chapter; does anarchy means violence.)

In my opinion as long as we live in a violent society we are obligated to use violence to escape from it/tear it down. We all know that as soon as we, the people, are raising our fist the police and army will be there to stop us or at least try to do so.

Besides that, voilence could be used in a tactical way and you should never rule it out when your planning actions. I'm not trying to say that every violence is good and always better than non violent actions but if you want to put pressure on a government/business (or what ever) don't rule the tactical use of violence out.

(More about this subject can be found in; How nonviolence protects the state, Peter Gelderloos.)

[ZrianKobani]

I think we can all agree that if there is to be a revolution, we want it to be a revolution of the people; to do that we must have them on our side and that means moving on their terms. The American public isn't ready for violence yet and will find even the most justifiable violence to be repulsive, the 1968 Chicago DNC and the Battle in Seattle prove this. We can do as much damage as we want but without the public's support, it will never amount to anything.

"The revolutionary war is a war of the masses; only mobilizing the masses and relying on them can wage it." ~Mao Zedong

[Kadir Ateş]

Violence as a phenomenon needs to be understand in a much broader sense than it is being associated with, i.e., more than just the spilling of blood.

Violence is inscribed in our language, in our very way of life in bourgeois society. It covers up the horrors of primitive and capital accumulation; it prevents us from understanding what actually goes at the level of production at work. It is used of course in the more physical sense, of bombs being dropped, of minorities being arrested, of the working class being deprived of a right to a decent life.

In a socialist revolution, political violence must be used because there is little doubt the bourgeoisie will simply hand over the keys to the factory. But we will also in the process of communization, be able to articulate a new vocabulary divested of its old meanings, of its encoded violence, but such will be done only during a revolution and onward after the smoke has cleared.