Do You Think Non-violence Works?

[TheRadicalAnarchist]

Being a rather radical anarchist, and seeing elements of anarchism in Occupy, I really don't get why most of the protesters don't defend themselves? Yeah, I get the technique of non-violence, but no self denfense either? I really don't get why they would submit to the police-state and obey the cops that are defending the fascist/capitalist/police-state America! The Anarchists that step in, or the Black-Bloc anarchists, are who I really support. Whether I join them or not I will NOT say.. BUT they seem to get that submiting to police orders do not help anything. Sure, I see some civil disobedience in Occupy, such as not moving, or shouting. But that really doesn't help anything but the police.

What are your opinions? Does Non-violent protesting do any progress?

Cheers.

[Ele'ill]

I'm not really bothered by non-violent tactics the problem is that people mistake 'non-violent' for non-confrontational and render themselves completely useless. Of course by 'violent' I'm using that liberal definition usage that tends to cover yelling loudly up through smash. Yes I think confrontational tactics and real violence is/is gonna be necessary and since we're perpetually under attack it's nothing but an act of self defense. Nothing of importance has ever been handed over and the ruling class isn't gonna change just cause some folks just decided for the first time in their lives to get all involved and activisty with occupy.

[Manic Impressive]

Peaceful protest doesn't work

But neither does violent protest

what are you protesting for anyway? reforms?

why is this in anti fascism?

[X5N]

Rationally, I don't believe in violence unless necessary (like if fascists are going around murdering people every day). But every time I watch a documentary or something that covers Nazi atrocities, all that goes out the window for a few minutes as I start foaming at the mouth screaming "kill all Nazis!"

But does non-violence work? I don't know. I'm torn a bit between direct action and the whole "oh but if we firebomb Golden Dawn's offices we'll look bad in the public eye" sort of thing.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Thread moved

[Mista Commie]

Because if you attack the police, even in self-defence, you are giving them a good reason to beat/taze/arrest/kill you.

[Dunk]

It is only important not to fetishize non-violence as a panacea as the liberal social reformists do, and remember that force can consist of a variety of tactics, whether violent or non-violent. I think it is also important that people in revolt should not think of themselves as the specialized agents of an inevitable historical change, so that they don't consider those who oppose it reactionaries, and make their slaughter a sacrifice on the altar of the revolution. We rather should be willing to sacrifice anything and everything of ourselves for revolution, and be unwilling to sacrifice others.

Whatever it takes, whenever it is called for - but for fuck's sake, lets retain our humanity.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Depends entirely on the situation in which the question arises.

[roy]

self-defence is obviously cool. the state/ruling class employs all sorts of violent means. i dont think either tactic 'works', necessarily, insofar as furthering the cause of whatever.

[Psy]

Because if you attack the police, even in self-defence, you are giving them a good reason to beat/taze/arrest/kill you.
The police doesn't need a reason they have beaten up cameramen with press passes from major networks like ABC just for point a camera at them. They don't give a shit as they know you can't sue them only the police department.

Also the NYPD have a quota system for arrests so if the officer is behind is monthly quota for arrests he will arrest anyway just to make his quota as false arrests never count against quotas in the NYPD as the point of the quota system is to gather information for their data base.

[Sasha]

http://www.agamsterdam.org/teksten/how-nonviolence-protects-the-state/


your welcome..

[Sea]

This is a loaded question, it presupposes that nonviolent acts won't devolve (or evolve, depending on how you look at it) into violent ones.

On top of that, violence or nonviolence often goes along with the beliefs of a protesting group (any, not just occupy). When a stance on violence is part of a group's ideology, whether nonviolent protest works or not is a moot question; at that point you're no longer asking about the act of protest in and of itself but of the validity of the ideas of the people behind it.

[TheRadicalAnarchist]

Peaceful protest doesn't work

But neither does violent protest

what are you protesting for anyway? reforms?

why is this in anti fascism?

Sorry if this if I have misplaced this question, I'm fairly new here.

[Book O'Dead]

Being a rather radical anarchist, and seeing elements of anarchism in Occupy, I really don't get why most of the protesters don't defend themselves? Yeah, I get the technique of non-violence, but no self denfense either? I really don't get why they would submit to the police-state and obey the cops that are defending the fascist/capitalist/police-state America! The Anarchists that step in, or the Black-Bloc anarchists, are who I really support. Whether I join them or not I will NOT say.. BUT they seem to get that submiting to police orders do not help anything. Sure, I see some civil disobedience in Occupy, such as not moving, or shouting. But that really doesn't help anything but the police.

What are your opinions? Does Non-violent protesting do any progress?

Cheers.

Non-violence in political and social struggles is no mere 'tecnique'. It is a philosophy and a principle. Same for self-defense.

No matter how you view it or how attractive violence may seem as a solution to political or social problems we should remember what a famous revolutionary once said: "The pen is mightier than the sword."

Learn to express clearly in speech and in writing your opposition to injustice and your desire for redress and you'll see that no weapon is mightier than the truth told at the right time.

[#FF0000]

Because if you attack the police, even in self-defence, you are giving them a good reason to beat/taze/arrest/kill you.

They don't really need a reason, and by resisting you're making it much harder for them to do any of that.

http://i.imgur.com/NoXE2.jpg

See what i'm sayin

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Because if you attack the police, even in self-defence, you are giving them a good reason to beat/taze/arrest/kill you.

The police are just people, you could do all of the above to them. See the last and best gun scene in True Romance.

0e9AhcSnxSk

[Sea]

The police are just people, you could do all of the above to them. See the last and best gun scene in True Romance.

0e9AhcSnxSkIt's easier for you to imagine yourself hurting cops by thinking of them as "just people" instead of as enemies?

That's rather disturbing..

[Manic Impressive]

Sorry if this if I have misplaced this question, I'm fairly new here.
no worries bud I was just wondering if you were talking about protesting against fascists or what? Because the answer is kind of different depending on what you are protesting about. But in general all protest is futile. The ruling class never pass a reform that goes against the interests of capital. Not unless there's a serious (revolutionary) threat to their position. Even then they tend to prefer violence instead of reform. Plus the fact that reforms are not what we should be fighting for anyway.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Does Non-violent protesting do any progress?Progress towards what?

There is no magic tactic that produces revolution. What concretely are you trying to achieve with any given action? Figure that out and then consider what tactics might best get you there.

[Costello74]

I always pity the liberals when you see them in videos shouting "this is a peaceful protest" "you shouldn't be attacking us". Then the cops just beat them pita the way with a smile on their face.
Youd think the protesters would learn but they do it every time tgeir is a confrontation. If the cops attack they should be met with the violence.
It's always sad to see a few people take action against the cops while others stand and shout or wave a flag.

[Desperado]

I always pity the liberals when you see them in videos shouting "this is a peaceful protest" "you shouldn't be attacking us". Then the cops just beat them pita the way with a smile on their face.
Youd think the protesters would learn but they do it every time tgeir is a confrontation. If the cops attack they should be met with the violence.
It's always sad to see a few people take action against the cops while others stand and shout or wave a flag.

On the one hand I can agree with you, however it is likewise shattering the liberal illusion of peaceful protesting within the democratic and accountable state. The fact that a peaceful protests are attacked by police - whilst common sense to us here - can be a big political revelation for a lot of more ordinary people. For exactly the same reason we don't necessarily go into protests confrontationally. Of course, again it depends on context and would be a different story if you're in somewhere like Greece.

It would likewise depend on whether you're going to react confrontationally or not - and using "peaceful" again as moral legitimacy in the eyes of ordinary people is often a good tactic, especially if you wont achieve much more.

Much better to shout, whatever the context, is "this was a peaceful protest", which means you're not condemning the protesters reaction, simply the police's initiation.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

It's easier for you to imagine yourself hurting cops by thinking of them as "just people" instead of as enemies?

That's rather disturbing..

:rolleyes:

Are you serious? Take your nitpicking and idiocy some place else, I don't even feel like addressing this properly.

[Raúl Duke]

Being a rather radical anarchist, and seeing elements of anarchism in Occupy, I really don't get why most of the protesters don't defend themselves? Yeah, I get the technique of non-violence, but no self denfense either? I really don't get why they would submit to the police-state and obey the cops that are defending the fascist/capitalist/police-state America! The Anarchists that step in, or the Black-Bloc anarchists, are who I really support. Whether I join them or not I will NOT say.. BUT they seem to get that submiting to police orders do not help anything. Sure, I see some civil disobedience in Occupy, such as not moving, or shouting. But that really doesn't help anything but the police.

What are your opinions? Does Non-violent protesting do any progress?

Cheers.

Since you reference Occupy, here's something I've observed.

A lot of Occupiers were quite fervent pacifist types, to the point that they complain and talk shit about others/other occupations which used a diversity of tactics (i.e. black-bloc included). These pacifists talked big and loud about how they're inspired by MLK and Ghandi...but in practice they're not even doing the same thing as their 60s counterparts.

In the 1960s, pacifist civil disobedience still had an element of confronting cops and not backing down; being open to the possibility of arrest.
While perhaps the NYC occupation followed the whole civil disobedience thing, in smaller occupations I imagine (at least certainly the one I saw in Ft. Myers) all they did was back down and/or leave when cops showed up. While perhaps this may have to do with a misunderstanding of 1960s civil disobedience tactics, another factor is that smaller occupations (plus the fact that the Occupy movement as a whole is very decentralized; no national offices or whatever) didn't have any organizational legal funds/team. Contrast this with the civil rights movement of the 1960s in which CORE, SNCC, etc had their own legal funds/teams and/or used the NAACP Legal Fund for their bail/defense/etc in case of arrest due to activism.

Now, I'm in no real position to argue whether non-violent civil disobedience (of the 60s type, not the limp-wristed backing down kind that the Occupy in my town did) is effective or not...but there's a document called "how nonviolence protects the state" which psycho generously posted and I suggest you read if you want some arguments against non-violence commitments.

[_shameless_]

i believe that non-violence gets you nowhere. with all the corruption in the us government violence is the only way to get your point across

[DasFapital]

well, if the cops are say...beating up a pregnant woman and causing her to miscarry (*cough* Seattle PD *cough*), then feel free to use force to break that up. Otherwise you should probably keep it on the down low for now.

[revolt]

activists don't make revolution, so it is pretty much irrelevant what tactics they adopt. a lot of leftists posture way too hard against non-violence because they want to distinguish themselves from "liberals", but in reality its just pretty silly. "violent" protesters are not anymore dangerous to the government by engaging in what, in the big picture, is really just very mild violence.

[TheRadicalAnarchist]

well, if the cops are say...beating up a pregnant woman and causing her to miscarry (*cough* Seattle PD *cough*), then feel free to use force to break that up. Otherwise you should probably keep it on the down low for now.

Well it shouldn't only be that the police use extensive force on those exercising their rights, but because they are defending the capitalist system being protested against. Fight fire with fire, the police want to fight? Fight back!

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

well, if the cops are say...beating up a pregnant woman and causing her to miscarry (*cough* Seattle PD *cough*), then feel free to use force to break that up. Otherwise you should probably keep it on the down low for now.

Fuck that, my comrades and their safety are my top priority, I don't even hesitate to confront the swines bullshit.

[revolt]

Fuck that, my comrades and their safety are my top priority, I don't even hesitate to confront the swines bullshit.sometimes you need to know when to be passive when interacting with cops just because you're smart enough to know whats good for you. there's nothing wrong with that.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

There is a part of me that respects certain non-violent actions (Ghandi is often given as an example, 'There are many causes for which I am willing to die, but none for which I am willing to kill', sorry if mis-quoted).
Personally, I feel you can make a distinction between direct controntaion (throwing the first punch and inviting the confilct) and defending yourself. In a revolution, violent confrontation seems inevitable or necessary even. In the context of a protest or demonstration, I tend to favour the non-violent approach (with a will to fight back if forced by the other side; the police, counter-demonstrations).

[DasFapital]

Well it shouldn't only be that the police use extensive force on those exercising their rights, but because they are defending the capitalist system being protested against. Fight fire with fire, the police want to fight? Fight back!
sure, go ahead if you want but it probably won't achieve much at the moment other than alienating the general public.

[Psy]

Well it shouldn't only be that the police use extensive force on those exercising their rights, but because they are defending the capitalist system being protested against. Fight fire with fire, the police want to fight? Fight back!

Well if we look historically violent uprisings has resulted in police quickly retiring from the conflict and the army taking their place. For example the Detroit riot of 1967 resulted in Detroit police pulling back and even the Michigan Nation Guard refused to enter Detroit till the US Army sent in the tanks.

https://www.reuther.wayne.edu/files/images/354.preview.jpg

https://www.reuther.wayne.edu/files/images/26014.preview.jpg

Which brings up a tiny problem with using violence against bourgeoisie states, they kinda out guns the proletariat so we need the revolution to spread to armed forces if we ever hope to survive when things escalates to the ruling class sending tanks to crush workers.

[Ready4Revolution]

When I'm feeling optimistic, I believe that non-violent revolution is the ideal goal we should be aiming for. I feel as though rejecting violence as a means or revolution is preferable to taking up arms.
However, most of the time I'm pessimistic and have a realist understanding of our situation. So, idealism goes out the window.

[pastradamus]

Non-violence is the path that must be followed in a situation where a peaceful means of revolution have not yet been exhausted.

[pastradamus]

Well if we look historically violent uprisings has resulted in police quickly retiring from the conflict and the army taking their place. For example the Detroit riot of 1967 resulted in Detroit police pulling back and even the Michigan Nation Guard refused to enter Detroit till the US Army sent in the tanks.

https://www.reuther.wayne.edu/files/images/354.preview.jpg

https://www.reuther.wayne.edu/files/images/26014.preview.jpg

Which brings up a tiny problem with using violence against bourgeoisie states, they kinda out guns the proletariat so we need the revolution to spread to armed forces if we ever hope to survive when things escalates to the ruling class sending tanks to crush workers.

Excellent point. I have not ever seen these photographs. Imagine the absolute fear a normal working-class man or woman must have felt upon seeing such ferocious military power at the time?

People in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Syria and many other countries see this daily.

[pastradamus]

When I'm feeling optimistic, I believe that non-violent revolution is the ideal goal we should be aiming for. I feel as though rejecting violence as a means or revolution is preferable to taking up arms.
However, most of the time I'm pessimistic and have a realist understanding of our situation. So, idealism goes out the window.

There is still a peaceful fight to be fought in the United States. It might not always seem preferrable to beating a few cops on the street but it still is the best option. Violence in such a media controlled state works very much against you in that situation I find. We shouldn't camp out in tents and nor should we "occupy" anywhere, this tactic has failed time and time again. What needs to happen is a democratic system of true change. The workers need to gain support from trade unions (win them back) and from other sources (inculding police and military). We need to beat them at their own game. This is just my opinion.

[Karabin]

I think in order for a revolution to be successful there needs to be a mixture of both violent and non-violent resistance, not just one or the other.

Let us look at India and Gandhi as an example. Gandhi and his Non-Cooperation/Civil Disobedience movements were emphasised by non-violence, which worked very well in India and eventually achieved its independence from the colonial Britain. The British harshly stopped the non-violent protests held by Indians against the British Raj, and this reflected badly on Britain's international image and thus the Indian nationalists were able to gain sympathy because they were seen as the victims of a cruel colonial government. This is an excellent example of Non-Violent protest and resistance. What happened to the violent nationalists that protested? They were either locked up (Tilak) or went overseas and fought alongside the Fascists to gain Indian independence (Subhas Chandra Bose).

But then we look at instances where violent revolutions and uprisings have resulted in the toppling of the old government and its replacement with a new one (Russia, 1917 and France, 1789), and from off the top of my head I can name many more successful violent revolutions and uprisings than non-violent ones. In some instances, violent uprisings can be the only way to achieve freedom or to get rid of a fascist government (A good example is Tito and the Yugoslav Partizans during WWII).

So to answer the topic question, in my opinion Non-Violence does work, as show with Gandhi and his accomplishments with the Congress in India. But I think its better if there is a mix of violent and non-violent resistance. What good is it to attack a few police officers at a rally when in the end you still go to Walmart, Woolworths, Kmart and buy your goods from there? What is the point of saying peacefully that you are against police brutality when you don't step in and fight against an officer who is hurting your comrades? Violence & non-violence must be woven together in order to create a successful revolution.

[human strike]

Imma link to an article on non-violence that someone wrote: http://pastebin.com/XXmpNdHH

[MuscularTophFan]

Non-violence brought down the Berlin wall.

Non-violence ended racial segregation.

lgbt people are discriminated against by law. Does that mean lgbt people like myself should form terrorist organizations to attack the US government until it grants us equal rights? No we strive and fight on though working on trying to get legislators to fight for lgbt rights, even if we lose many many times in the struggle for full equality. It's a brutal struggle we have been fighting since the 1970s but in the end we will overcome.

Violence only leads to more violence. We have to stop.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Does that mean lgbt people like myself should form terrorist organizations to attack the US government until it grants us equal rights? Oh how I would love that

[black magick hustla]

i find more distressing the maoist wannabes and anarchoshitheads posturing on violence than antiviolence hippies. there is something gross about some white kid talking about armed insurrection and the necessity of it when he or she doesn't even know how to clean a gun

[electrostal]

there is something gross about some white kid talking about armed insurrection and the necessity of it when he or she doesn't even know how to clean a gun Che Guevara
White
Didn't know how to clear a gun back in Argentina

Conclusion: Red Alert wannabes are potential Che Guevaras?

Probably not, but your post is nevertheless ridiculous.

People can talk about violence and non-violence in principle, and yes, knowing how to clean a gun has no relevance to that.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

The point as protest organisers is to constantly have demonstrations in way that surprise the police force and basically have organised civil disobedience as this becomes stressful for the police to handle and things get violent: so no, the goal is not "non-violent" protest, but agitating violence in non-violent ways to protesting violence.

[black magick hustla]

Che Guevara
White
Didn't know how to clear a gun back in Argentina

Conclusion: Red Alert wannabes are potential Che Guevaras?

Probably not, but your post is nevertheless ridiculous.

People can talk about violence and non-violence in principle, and yes, knowing how to clean a gun has no relevance to that.

:shrugs:, i am not against violence even if i don't know how to use a gun, but in my experience, there is a particular type of people in activist millieus that have a strange fetish for violence and the image of armed struggle and while the "clean a gun thing" was a joke, these are people who a lot of the times have never encountered any sort of serious violence and their proclamations of it are gross and akin to larpers. i think anybody who has a nuanced view of history understands that the dimensions of revolution and class struggle are much larger than "violence" or "non violence". violence is a tactical issue, not a matter of principle. even the state itself uses violence as a matter of tactic, preferring most of the time using other more subtle mechanisms of control. the state doesn't have power because it has bigger guns.

[Rafiq]

Non violence as an ideology, as a princible, in ways similiarly utilized by hippies is a tool of the Bourgreois state. Not using violence in some cases as a tactic may work, but can never and will never during a revolution (NOT the siezure of power, but the process of asserting proletarian power after it is seized from the enemy).

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[wsg1991]

Which brings up a tiny problem with using violence against bourgeoisie states, they kinda out guns the proletariat so we need the revolution to spread to armed forces if we ever hope to survive when things escalates to the ruling class sending tanks to crush workers.

sorry i still don't believe that USA army will use tanks shells against it's citizens
it's just fear effect , i don't think they will use them

[Ele'ill]

Che Guevara
White
Didn't know how to clear a gun back in Argentina

Conclusion: Red Alert wannabes are potential Che Guevaras?

Probably not, but your post is nevertheless ridiculous.

People can talk about violence and non-violence in principle, and yes, knowing how to clean a gun has no relevance to that.

I think BMH was talking more about the 'Red Dawn' romanticizers or those who want waterfalls of organs and tanks in the streets although I've never met any of those types in person they do frequent forums and stuff and I think they're akin to those who I have met in real life who want to live through some type of x apocalypse just so they can test their survival skills with their new backpacks. I think it is a valid point though that armed insurrection is kind of vague and 'armed' can mean a lot of different things.

[Psy]

sorry i still don't believe that USA army will use tanks shells against it's citizens
it's just fear effect , i don't think they will use them
The USSR Army did so what makes the US Army any different? Also the US Army did bomb US workers during 1877 from airplanes so what has changed to stop them from bombing workers from the air now?

[Raúl Duke]

sorry i still don't believe that USA army will use tanks shells against it's citizensThe US doesn't mind murdering civilian populations, it won't make a difference what nationality they are if they thought that was a good option towards their goal; at least at the level of institution.

They didn't though due to that the media might probably have a field day over it.
Unless they silence them.

In the 50s or 40s, the mid 20th century, the US army used bombers and the national guard to stop Puerto Rican nationalists in Ponce. The media was silenced, so most people in the states at that time did not know about it.

[Psy]

Excellent point. I have not ever seen these photographs. Imagine the absolute fear a normal working-class man or woman must have felt upon seeing such ferocious military power at the time?

People in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Syria and many other countries see this daily.

Revision of the Detroit 1967 has downplayed the role of the US Army since it raises the question comes up how was the US's response to Detroit 1967 any different then the USSR's response to East Berlin 1953. But the worst part was the US Army and Michigan National Guard allowed the police back into Detroit that went right back to being racist pigs which was the #1 grievance that kicked off the 1967 Detroit riot in the first place.

[MuscularTophFan]

Murder is the ultimate form of stupidity and anti-intellectualism. When you don't agree with someone you would go so far as to silence them forever by killing them, but you can't kill their ideology. We can kill thousands of al-Qaeda fundies but is that going to kill the insane Islamic ideology of al-Qaeda? No.

If anyone watched Avatar: The Last Airbender Aang was told by everyone that he had to kill Fire Lord Ozai in order to end the war. But Aang refused to do it and instead stole his bending from him and thus ended the war. The moral of the story is people need to think outside of the box in order to solve problems instead of going around killing each other like a bunch of Neanderthals.

[Lanky Wanker]

Let's camp outside some famous places and act like good little rabbits by running away or sitting there like ants without legs while they beat the shit out of us and pepper spray us. Let us wait for change, let us pray for reform, let us hold signs and sing songs to the corporations who are screwing us over! Because WE are the people who are going to errmmmm aw fuck no, turn off my speaker. That kind of non-violence is bullshit, but so is the whole anarkiddie black-bloc bollocks where people take their tantrums with mummy and daddy into the streets and start smashing things up, chanting anti-fascista and trying to barbecue a few pigs.

All violent protest seems to actually do is force the bourgeoisie to make last resort changes which don't actually change much for long. It can only back down so far and play good doggy for a while until it kicks you in the nutsack at full force. Sure, good has come out of workers collectively saying fuck you to their employers without killing them or starting a revolution, but even then we don't want to guide the bourgeois state, even if it is to its death; we want to smash the shit out of it and run things ourselves.

All that said, peaceful protests can serve the purpose of gaining support for various causes. Violent ones? Well, would you punch someone in the face then ask a bystander to sign your petition for you? Might work... blah, I should really start using this site more often when I'm not stoned or falling asleep.

[MarxSchmarx]

:shrugs:, i am not against violence even if i don't know how to use a gun, but in my experience, there is a particular type of people in activist millieus that have a strange fetish for violence and the image of armed struggle

Well, they might be just cops.



Violence only leads to more violence. We have to stop.

That's a great point, actually. The promise of non-violence is in part it is seen by its proponents as a form of prefigurative politics. The scars of violence never heal, and even if the bourgeois state is defeated militarily (which I highly doubt) there will be a long residue/legacy of the violence. No successful leftist insurrection has really managed to successfully dismantle the machinery of violence it built up - and in several cases, these same structures became institutionalized and ultimately devoured the revolution.

[SOSharuhi101]

Eh, violent protests can be risky, if they are done wrong or fail. They can give the bourgeois ammunition to write the organization off as terrorists, and also give them the excuse to treat them as combatants without the hassles of human right organizations. Unless the organization has a massive network of people, a supply route to enough weapons to defend themselves, or possibly international allies, it has more chance of turning out bad then not.

[SirBrendan]

Not everyone is a socialist. Not everyone wants to be a socialist. Not everyone, even given all the information that converted you, would agree with socialism.

By what right would you emply violence?And in what way does that somehow make you better than the fascists? and please don't answer with a sphiel about capitalist theft and exploitation, because again, fascists perceive the same injustice being comitted by foreign ethnicities.

A high moral ground requires actions and thoughts deserving of that ground.

Non violent protest is our only option right now. We do not have the consent or support of the majority, and they certainly won't be turned onto socialism because some clown in a black mask shoots a cop.

Discussion and education are our weapons.

[Art Vandelay]

Not everyone is a socialist. Not everyone wants to be a socialist. Not everyone, even given all the information that converted you, would agree with socialism.

By what right would you emply violence?And in what way does that somehow make you better than the fascists? and please don't answer with a sphiel about capitalist theft and exploitation, because again, fascists perceive the same injustice being comitted by foreign ethnicities.

A high moral ground requires actions and thoughts deserving of that ground.

Non violent protest is our only option right now. We do not have the consent or support of the majority, and they certainly won't be turned onto socialism because some clown in a black mask shoots a cop.

Discussion and education are our weapons.

You are correct in saying that, right now, non-violence is our only option, ie: you can't blow up or shoot a social relation. However you won't see me shed a tear for the bourgeoisie come time for revolution. While obviously I would love it if we could sing cumbaya and hold hands all the way to socialism, we can't.

Another aspect which is, seemingly, overlooked when talking about violence as a tool for social change is that we live in an inherently violent world. Perhaps not in the traditional sense, but we do. To me, it is violence to let someone starve to death while food goes uneaten; it is violence to let people be homeless while houses sit empty. So if it takes violence to stop this inherently violent society, so be it.

[Comrades Unite!]

Non-Violence is advantageous only to the bourgeoise.
They see it a weakness,They use they're charm to stamp out most of the Proletariat desires without the Proletariat taking notice.

If we hope to abolish the Bourgeois state we must use the highest force there is, Violence we must then set up the Proletariat state without the bourgeois interfering.

The Fascists must also be crushed by the Iron fist every marxist holds dear to their name.

[Comrades Unite!]

i find more distressing the maoist wannabes and anarchoshitheads posturing on violence than antiviolence hippies. there is something gross about some white kid talking about armed insurrection and the necessity of it when he or she doesn't even know how to clean a gun

What is this?
I believe Frederic Engels,Marx and Lenin had no clue how to even operate a firearms,yet they all called for Violence.

Also what the fuck does it matter if its a white kid or a black kid why did you bring that up?

They talk of it in discussion of if violence is necessary which is far more helpful than your useless post.

[Art Vandelay]

What is this?
I believe Frederic Engels,Marx and Lenin had no clue how to even operate a firearms,yet they all called for Violence.

Also what the fuck does it matter if its a white kid or a black kid why did you bring that up?

They talk of it in discussion of if violence is necessary which is far more helpful than your useless post.

For the record Engels was no intellectual who spoke about violence while puffing on a cigar in his chair; dude manned the barricades with a revolver.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I think a medium should be found. Direct action against property can be a very useful tool. I'm not exactly sure what government property we would attack, but something like that would be useful.

[Luís Henrique]

The police doesn't need a reason

Of course they do.


they have beaten up cameramen with press passes from major networks like ABC just for point a camera at them.

Which is an evident political mistake that we should exploit.


They don't give a shit as they know you can't sue them only the police department.

In what country?

Here anyone can sue a policeman, and the State often does it when evidence of crime or misdemeanour is clear. And I am talking about one of the States - Brazil - where the police does enjoy most leeway in committing crimes.


Also the NYPD have a quota system for arrests so if the officer is behind is monthly quota for arrests he will arrest anyway just to make his quota as false arrests never count against quotas in the NYPD

If this is true urgent action is evidently needed to overturn such absurd rule.

Or, maybe, some of us are just believing urban legends about the police?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

They don't really need a reason, and by resisting you're making it much harder for them to do any of that.

http://i.imgur.com/NoXE2.jpg

See what i'm sayin

That picture only holds if the police doesn't have the political conditions needed to open fire against the mineros. If such conditions obtain, make no mistake: the police will use live ammunition againt miners.

Ludlow Massacre (http://www.du.edu/ludlow/cfhist3.html)
Columbine Mine Massacre (http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/96936.html)
Herrin Massacre (http://artandsocialissues.cmaohio.org/web-content/pages/econ_cadmus.html)
Lattimer Massacre (http://users.rcn.com/salski/No26Folder/Lattimer_Massacre.htm)
Bay View Massacre (http://my.execpc.com/~blake/rollin~1.htm)

Delusions about "active resistance" are just another kind of delusions about bourgeois democracy and its supposed respect for workers' rights.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

lgbt people are discriminated against by law. Does that mean lgbt people like myself should form terrorist organizations to attack the US government until it grants us equal rights? No we strive and fight on though working on trying to get legislators to fight for lgbt rights, even if we lose many many times in the struggle for full equality. It's a brutal struggle we have been fighting since the 1970s but in the end we will overcome.

Violence only leads to more violence. We have to stop.

Of course, the end of anti-LGBT discrimination is a reform - ie, something some of our "revolutionaries" think we shouldn't fight for - so it is possible to fight for it, and probably achieve a lot of victories without the use of violence. A different thing would be the overthrow of the capitalist system; this cannot be achieved without outright violence.

The use of violence, however, is only effective when one has a greater capacity of unleashing violence against the other side. Achieving such capacity does not necessarily, or even usually, involve widespread violence.

This whole discussion confuses tactics with strategy, which is the reason it cannot reach reasonable conclusions.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

sorry i still don't believe that USA army will use tanks shells against it's citizens
it's just fear effect , i don't think they will use them

They have used deadly violence as recently as 1993, against something (http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=2908955&page=1#.UAICcn2OGJM) that posed way less of a threat than a working class uprising.

Of course, the use or not use of tanks is merely a tactical or organisational issue, not one of principle.

Luís Henrique

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Like for instance, your strolling through the city, and you pass an alleyway. It’s not really an area you want to be but something doesn’t seem right and you can hear some loud voices. You look down the alleyway and there she is, an innocent woman being raped, beaten and other nasty things. “Ethically” do you walk away because you don’t want to hurt her aggressor, or “ethically” do you interject to help this poor woman out? Personally, I’d be all over the aggressor like a seagull on a french fry. Being a “compassionate” person I may steer clear of ripping his head from his neck and maybe instead, I would subdue him enough for the woman to escape and seek some assistance. That doesn’t seem that wrong to me. Had I walked away from it I may eventually start to feel guilt and be tormented by my thoughts. Did she die? Is she permanently scarred? But I digress.

Without putting to much of a spin on this, it basically comes down to what we believe is right or wrong. It is wrong, in my mind, to not try and protect fellow human beings. And it is right, again in my mind, to do whatever it takes to cease the suffering of those that are suffering. Interpret that however you want. I am not condoning any sort of violence at all, but at the same time I refuse to sit by and watch another person suffer via the hands of someone else. If you had to protect yourself or someone else from mortal danger, what would you do? I think most rational people would stand up and not allow it to happen. And same is with revolution,this was just an example,that is made to be more "easy" understandable.

Get it :thumbup1:

As human beings, I believe we are here to help eachother. Allowing a predator to harm someone is not help at all, it is pitiful and inexcusable in my mind! Like I said, it doesn’t mean punch the crap out of the guy, just diffuse the situation so NOONE is hurt (if you can of course)!

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Non-violence only works if our enemies don't use violence, but that won't happen. They will do everything to remain in power. They use violence, why should we play with different rules against them?

[MuscularTophFan]

Non-violence only works if our enemies don't use violence,
Bullshit. Martin Luther King Jr. would like to have a word with you.


but that won't happen. They will do everything to remain in power. They use violence, why should we play with different rules against them?
Because violence encourages the population to side aganist the oppressors. Just look at all of the defectors from the Syrian military over the genocide in Syria. Not everyone is a immoral murderous psychopath.

[Igor]

Bullshit. Martin Luther King Jr. would like to have a word with you.

Well congratulations to Mr. King, but the guy ended up assassinated and 50 years later, racism is still omnipresent in the American society. It has taken a radically different from than Jim Crow era racism, but it's still there and it's not looking like it's going anywhere. So yeah, I really couldn't care less what MLKJ thinks, at least if you really want to get rid of racism, not to make it "nicer".


Because violence encourages the population to side aganist the oppressors. Just look at all of the defectors from the Syrian military over the genocide in Syria. Not everyone is a immoral murderous psychopath.

Self-defence is immoral murderous psychopathy? What? Uh?

is this the real world

[MuscularTophFan]

Well congratulations to Mr. King, but the guy ended up assassinated and 50 years later, racism is still omnipresent in the American society. It has taken a radically different from than Jim Crow era racism, but it's still there and it's not looking like it's going anywhere. So yeah, I really couldn't care less what MLKJ thinks, at least if you really want to get rid of racism, not to make it "nicer".
Yes racism is still alive in America and yet we have the first black president who's middle name is 'Hussein' Gays still don't have fully equal rights yet but we don't go around bombing and threatening Washington that if they don't give us equal rights we will begin a wage a guerrilla campaign against the government.




Self-defence is immoral murderous psychopathy? What? Uh?

is this the real world
Murder is murder. You can't justify killing a human being in any circumstances.

[Igor]

Yes racism is still alive in America and yet we have the first black president who's middle name is 'Hussein' Gays still don't have fully equal rights yet but we don't go around bombing and threatening Washington that if they don't give us equal rights we will begin a wage a guerrilla campaign against the government.

Yeah gays have it pretty bad but it's not like there's a whole prison-industrial complex based on systematic discrimination of them. Racism doesn't mean systematic hatred of everyone who doesn't share your skin colour; it has lots of subtle shades to it, and there are always "good black guys", which usually is mixed to some pretty bad classist attitudes. And even Obama, being a rich black guy and generally accepted by the society, has invoked a major racist reaction from not really that irrelevant people and media corporations. Nobody is saying we should go full-on terrorist, though, which you are implying, but as this system is being upheld by violence, we're only offering ourselves for a good beating and potentially death if we're not ready to use force. They're going to consider us thugs anyways, the media is going to paint as as a violent bunch of vandals anyways, so we might as well be just that, if it gives us results.


Murder is murder. You can't justify killing a human being in any circumstances.

Yeah have fun with your pacifist shit but if my life is threatened, I'm ready to use lethal force to protect it.

[MuscularTophFan]

Yeah gays have it pretty bad but it's not like there's a whole prison-industrial complex based on systematic discrimination of them. Racism doesn't mean systematic hatred of everyone who doesn't share your skin colour; it has lots of subtle shades to it, and there are always "good black guys", which usually is mixed to some pretty bad classist attitudes. And even Obama, being a rich black guy and generally accepted by the society, has invoked a major racist reaction from not really that irrelevant people and media corporations. Nobody is saying we should go full-on terrorist, though, which you are implying, but as this system is being upheld by violence, we're only offering ourselves for a good beating and potentially death if we're not ready to use force. They're going to consider us thugs anyways, the media is going to paint as as a violent bunch of vandals anyways, so we might as well be just that, if it gives us results.



Yeah have fun with your pacifist shit but if my life is threatened, I'm ready to use lethal force to protect it.
Not all anarchists are violent. I'm an anarchist and I oppose violence. it gives anarchism a bad name.

[roy]

Murder is murder. You can't justify killing a human being in any circumstances.

so if joe is strolling home from the botanic gardens and a knife-wielding fellow starts trying to kill him and joe defends himself, killing said fellow in the process, joe is in the wrong?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Bullshit. Martin Luther King Jr. would like to have a word with you.


Because violence encourages the population to side aganist the oppressors. Just look at all of the defectors from the Syrian military over the genocide in Syria. Not everyone is a immoral murderous psychopath.

The Black Panthers and they armed the black community. MLK wouldn't have achieved anything without violent groups.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

With regard to the OP, No. The ruling class loves non-violent resistance (vs. actual resistance). It doesn't work -- and frankly MLK was a pro-Democratic Party black politician. Not a revolutionary. He was on the other side, comrades.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Yes racism is still alive in America and yet we have the first black president who's middle name is 'Hussein' Gays still don't have fully equal rights yet but we don't go around bombing and threatening Washington that if they don't give us equal rights we will begin a wage a guerrilla campaign against the government.



Murder is murder. You can't justify killing a human being in any circumstances.

What is wrong with killing opressors?
What is a quick death compared to hunderds of years of suffering,hunger, poverty of the working class to a quick death of an exploiter

[helot]

Not all anarchists are violent. I'm an anarchist and I oppose violence. it gives anarchism a bad name.


No it doesn't, being irrelevant to the working class gives anarchism a bad name. Do you honestly think that if anarchists used violence to defend a picket line we'd get a bad name for it? What the bourgeois media claims is meaningless, they will always claim we're advocates of violence and chaos, the thing is that violence within particular circumstances can have hugely different results on how people perceive us.

[Ele'ill]

The civil rights era commonly talked about in school or whatever is a distorted historical view of the demands, the struggle, the tactics and the desires of everyone relying on and participating in that struggle.

So I don't like quoting from books and stuff but since it's relevant and because I think MuscularTophFan would appreciate this read I'll suggest How Nonviolence Protects The State by Peter Gelderloos with this relevant quote from it


In the spring of 1963, Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birmingham campaign was
looking like it would be a repeat of the dismally failed action in Albany, Georgia
(where a 9 month civil disobedience campaign in 1961 demonstrated the
powerlessness of nonviolent protesters against a government with seemingly
bottomless jails, and where, on July 24, 1962, rioting youth took over whole
blocks for a night and forced the police to retreat from the ghetto, demonstrating
that a year after the nonviolent campaign, black people in Albany still struggled
against racism, but they had lost their preference for nonviolence). Then, on May
7 in Birmingham, after continued police violence, three thousand black people
began fighting back, pelting the police with rocks and bottles. Just two days later,
Birmingham-up until then an inflexible bastion of segregation-agreed to
desegregate downtown stores, and President Kennedy backed the agreement with
federal guarantees. The next day, after local white supremacists bombed a black
home and a black business, thousands of black people rioted again, seizing a 9
block area, destroying police cars, injuring several cops (including the chief
inspector), and burning white businesses. A month and a day later, President
Kennedy was calling for Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act, ending several years
of a strategy to stall the civil rights movement." Perhaps the largest of the limited,
if not hollow, victories of the civil rights movement came when black people
demonstrated they would not remain peaceful forever.

Here is the pdf http://zinelibrary.info/files/How%20Nonviolence%20Protects%20The%20State.pdf

[Comrades Unite!]

MTF Shut the hell up.
The amount of violence in those day's was unprecedented,MLK was ONE man, He was NOT the entire movement,He wouldn't have gotten anywhere without Violent groups such as TBP or people that supported Violence such as Malcolm X or the black masses who rioted, Also as another poster described he was murdered which sparked numerous race riots.

Fuckin' Liberals.

[Nox]

Non-violence has never achieved anything, ever.

Even Gandhi himself, the icon of "non-violence", was far from non-violent.

[Comrades Unite!]

Non-violence has never achieved anything, ever.

Even Gandhi himself, the icon of "non-violence", was far from non-violent.

Exactly, Violence is a force that should be utilized to oust the bourgeois.
Any other method is begging for the Bourgeois to seize it and come up ''Compromise'' and ''Negotiations''.

Non-Violence is always met with violence, this is a lesson history has thought us.

[eric922]

I think violence should always be used as a last resort and limited as much as possible. Some will be necessary, sadly, but we should always try to limit. I'm going to quote NGNM85 here, because he posted his views on violence in another thread and they are pretty close to mine and he said it a lot better, hopefully he doesn't mind me quoting him:

"but I apply the Hippocratic principle; Violence should always be a last resort, it should be proportionate, and it should be fairly reasonable to assume that the consequences will not be dramatically worse than whatever prompted it. Anyone who suggests otherwise is an idiot, or a psychopath."

[Luís Henrique]

Murder is murder. You can't justify killing a human being in any circumstances.

Of course you can. You may dislike the justification, but that doesn't mean it isn't one.

Luís Henrique

[human strike]

Non-violence brought down the Berlin wall.

Non-violence ended racial segregation.

Hohoho.

http://zenrevolution.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/berlin-wall-falling.jpg

Violent property destruction!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Wattsriots-burningbuildings-loc.jpg/300px-Wattsriots-burningbuildings-loc.jpg

Riots had nothing to do with the ending of racial segregation in the US or South Africa. As this photo clearly shows, LA was never on fire in 1965.

"I am only effective as long as there is a shadow on white America of the black man standing behind me with a Molotov cocktail.” - Martin Luther King, Jr.

[lan153rez]

I think it depends on the situation. For instance, in some countries it is a necessary for the sake of peace might sound crazy but it is.

[Ele'ill]

I think violence should always be used as a last resort and limited as much as possible. Some will be necessary, sadly, but we should always try to limit. I'm going to quote NGNM85 here, because he posted his views on violence in another thread and they are pretty close to mine and he said it a lot better, hopefully he doesn't mind me quoting him:

"but I apply the Hippocratic principle; Violence should always be a last resort, it should be proportionate, and it should be fairly reasonable to assume that the consequences will not be dramatically worse than whatever prompted it. Anyone who suggests otherwise is an idiot, or a psychopath."

Tactics should be proportionate in application based on their usefulness to those using them and not some generalized across the board cultist critique- The same quote here could be said for peace, regarding struggle:

"Peace should be proportionate, and it should be fairly reasonable to assume that the consequences will not be dramatically worse than whatever prompted it. Anyone who suggests otherwise is an idiot, or a psychopath."

I think this is extremely relevant given the history of 'peace' and 'status quo' elements and their desire to coop struggle. A big issue with these discussions is with the word 'violence' because half of those discussing view violence as any type of militant confrontation with and resistance to the state. I don't know the context of the conversation surrounding what the user NGNM said so I'm taking the quote literally.

[eric922]

Tactics should be proportionate in application based on their usefulness to those using them and not some generalized across the board cultist critique- The same quote here could be said for peace, regarding struggle:

"Peace should be proportionate, and it should be fairly reasonable to assume that the consequences will not be dramatically worse than whatever prompted it. Anyone who suggests otherwise is an idiot, or a psychopath."

I think this is extremely relevant given the history of 'peace' and 'status quo' elements and their desire to coop struggle. A big issue with these discussions is with the word 'violence' because half of those discussing view violence as any type of militant confrontation with and resistance to the state. I don't know the context of the conversation surrounding what the user NGNM said so I'm taking the quote literally.
Very good point point, so let me define violence as I'm using it here. I am not defining it as striking or even resisting arrest when you are protesting. I am defining it in terms of war, and repression. I think a lot of people, not just here but in general, talk far too nonchalantly about killing and taking life. I don't think that is something that should ever be done except in the last resort. Even here I sometimes see joking (I think) posts of putting former capitalists up against a wall and shooting them after a revolution, which I oppose. That is the main point I'm trying to make, we should use violence when it is used against us, but we should set it aside when possible. It is a tool, but it isn't one we should enjoy using or use when there are other options of achieving our goals.

[MuscularTophFan]

Hohoho.

http://zenrevolution.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/berlin-wall-falling.jpg

Violent property destruction!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Wattsriots-burningbuildings-loc.jpg/300px-Wattsriots-burningbuildings-loc.jpg

Riots had nothing to do with the ending of racial segregation in the US or South Africa. As this photo clearly shows, LA was never on fire in 1965.

"I am only effective as long as there is a shadow on white America of the black man standing behind me with a Molotov cocktail.” - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Hey ahole maybe you shouldn't be talking about violent murdering and killing consider a fews hours ago there violent murdering killing that went on in Aurora, Colorado.

[Welshy]

Hey ahole maybe you shouldn't be talking about violent murdering and killing consider a fews hours ago there violent murdering killing that went on in Aurora, Colorado.

Yeah because we are advocating going into a movie theater and shooting up a bunch of people. Get of your fucking high horse, reality doesn't conform to what you consider to nice and just.

And since you went this way with your statement then I guess I play the same game too. Hey asshole you shouldn't be advocating nonviolence and passivity when people are being constantly killed by the capitalist state. By talking in absolutes when it comes to violence, especially an absolutist position against violence, you take away oppressed peoples ability to have any self-defense and are essentially demanding that they line up and wait their turn to get either shot or beaten. Violence is not right in every case and it shouldn't be fetishized like a lot of young anarchists or young people who read Guevara for the first time do. Non-violence, however, can be just as deadly as violence, but unlike cases where violence is used the only people who are at risk of dying when non-violence is used are the workers (or protesters in general). Non-violence alone is no threat to the state nor the capitalist system as a whole.

[Vorptanet]

It should be a peacefull protest but if the police or people come out and start trying to fight you should defend yourselves.

Violent protests would work but people would fear your then.

[Ele'ill]

Hey ahole maybe you shouldn't be talking about violent murdering and killing consider a fews hours ago there violent murdering killing that went on in Aurora, Colorado.

Nobody is talking about gunning people down and you weren't even talking about this. You were claiming that popular examples of struggle throughout history are successful because they were 100% peaceful and it's been shown that it isn't the case. So when the example of the civil rights era came up and it was pointed out that there were significant instances where cop cars were torched, police fleeing from a hail of bricks and bottles and neighborhoods reclaimed- you cannot simply point at some relatively unrelated instance of murder and say 'see that's what u want'.

[Ele'ill]

Dug this up. I think it's a pretty important response and perhaps should be sticky'd cause the message kind of goes past 'the black bloc' and urges it's application across the board.

oesjegD1-Vg

-BuPK81aWks

JIXEmeTRdUQ

[human strike]

Hey ahole maybe you shouldn't be talking about violent murdering and killing consider a fews hours ago there violent murdering killing that went on in Aurora, Colorado.

What you fail to recognise is that there is nothing special about violence. It's a very ordinary thing, unfortunately, and something we have to contend with in everyday life. What is significant is how violence is used and for what purpose. The violence of state and capital, for example, is very different to the violence of resistance to state and capital. One is oppressive whilst the other is liberatory. As a basic principle the use of violent tactics can often be described as self-defence or counter-violence. George Orwell claimed that any pacifist who refused to violently fight Nazism was objectively pro-fascist. How can this be? Because not utilising effective means of resistance to oppressive violence makes on culpable in that oppression. This isn't to claim that only violent tactics are effective, rather it is to transcend a sort of Christian bullshit morality on the issue.

For further reading I recommend How Nonviolence Protects the State by Peter Gelderloos and Pacifism as Pathology by Ward Churchill.

And this: http://pastebin.com/XXmpNdHH

[Zannarchy]

I have always been under the impression that violence should be used defensively, but that movements tend to alienate people when using violence overtly on the offensive. civil disobedience time and time again has been a successful revolutionary measure

In terms of tactically damaging an opponent, I generally think that splinter celling it and disrupting a governments modes of dominance are best. Killing a cop does nothing. Cutting the entire CCTV network through Mission impossibleing into police hq is a highly effective attack. steal supplies, set up solidarity with local criminals with a conscience, guerilla groups, DIYers, or other protest groups. the fewer people killed, the less likely you will be branded as terrorists by the masses. use violence only when absolutely necessary.

[Rottenfruit]

Being a rather radical anarchist, and seeing elements of anarchism in Occupy, I really don't get why most of the protesters don't defend themselves? Yeah, I get the technique of non-violence, but no self denfense either? I really don't get why they would submit to the police-state and obey the cops that are defending the fascist/capitalist/police-state America! The Anarchists that step in, or the Black-Bloc anarchists, are who I really support. Whether I join them or not I will NOT say.. BUT they seem to get that submiting to police orders do not help anything. Sure, I see some civil disobedience in Occupy, such as not moving, or shouting. But that really doesn't help anything but the police.

What are your opinions? Does Non-violent protesting do any progress?

Cheers.
No non violent protests do not work, Non violent protests is what the rulling class to keep the status que

[Psy]

I have always been under the impression that violence should be used defensively, but that movements tend to alienate people when using violence overtly on the offensive. civil disobedience time and time again has been a successful revolutionary measure

In terms of tactically damaging an opponent, I generally think that splinter celling it and disrupting a governments modes of dominance are best. Killing a cop does nothing. Cutting the entire CCTV network through Mission impossibleing into police hq is a highly effective attack. steal supplies, set up solidarity with local criminals with a conscience, guerilla groups, DIYers, or other protest groups. the fewer people killed, the less likely you will be branded as terrorists by the masses. use violence only when absolutely necessary.

Actually the best way to reduce causalities is to unleash the full industrial might of the proletariat against the police, all the barriers we see at G20's were erected by workers so why can't workers build their own barriers to control the mobility of police?

http://www.blogto.com/upload/2010/06/20100608-g20-6-construction2.jpg
Imagine if this is turned against them, and workers erect barriers so the protesters can withdrawal to a position more easily defended. Also think about the possibility of police barriers being sabotaged during their construction by militant workers allowing protesters to easily burst through them.

Having the labor of the proletariat on the side of the protest opens up much more capabilities.

[Luís Henrique]

No non violent protests do not work, Non violent protests is what the rulling class to keep the status que

It depends on what you call "work". It is evidently impossible to overthrow the capitalist system with only non-violent protests (just as it is also impossible to overthrow it without any non-violent protests either), but it is obviously possible to obtain a wage raise, or the ousting of a corrupt authority, or the overturn of a repressive law with non-violent protests.

And evidently the ruling class uses many different tools to keep the status quo, but non-violent protests seldom are one of those.

Luís Henrique

[RedCloud]

Depends entirely on the situation in which the question arises.

I was going to say this but it looks like you beat me to it...

What tactic works for one situation most likely won't work for the next.

I would generally say that violent protests do work though, as non-violence goes unnoticed. Again, it depends on what it's for. If you are at some NSM rally and police aren't around protecting them (like they usually are yet not always), then no one is really going to care.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Every situation is different, we've seen larger numbers come out interested in joining movements when they see police attack peaceful protesters but other times it's been an utter failure at raising attention/interest with most people.

[Lither]

If a non-violent protest is to work then the media has to be on the side of the protesters. I see Gandhi brought up here, and he only got as far as he did by arranging things with the media so that every time there was news of protests in India all the public ever saw were a bunch of soldiers/ police beating a group of people who refused to harm them.

Now this community I'm going to take an educated guess and say that we're not fighting for things that the media companies are going to enjoy happening. So by nature the media is going to take every advantage they have and use it against us, and only the dedicated leftist media groups are going to say anything in support. Unfortunately they're not read anywhere near as much as what the big corporations churn out, so we can assume that the media is almost certainly not going to be on our side.

However, unplanned violent protests are much, much worse. The media is just going to paint the violent protesters in an even worse light, the police or possibly the army is going to break it up and in the end it will only have set us back. If we want any protesting to be done we need the support of the police, army or court system (they'll be the ones prosecuting those who did protest and were unlucky enough to be captured).

[The Borg]

One of my party comrades put it nicely when he said, that getting obsessed with non-violence is as non-constructive as getting obsessed with violence. Naturally we should avoid violence with all effort, but sometimes priorities are priorities. It's a lot more extreme to tell someone to get beaten for some abstract idea of pacifism, than it is to tell that same person to give up non-violence this once to defend yourself.

[Philosophos]

Well violence in the right form. When I see anarchists (I'm not talking about people who pretend to be anarchists, I'm talking about the real deal here) smashing and breaking people's stores, houses, cars that's a bit idiotic if you ask me. The purpose of every anarchist is to bring as many people as possible closer to his ideology. If you make their lives harder (while they were hard enough) you are going to suceed the exact opposite.

If you take part in a rally or sth like it and the cops attack you well yeah you should strike back or at least defend yourself. When you start the attack you make all the people out there that are stupid (when I say stupid I mean they don't know about propaganda of the media, the only left idea they've heard is Stalin, they think capitalism works etc etc) to think that anarchism is the complete chaos (something that the media want).

It's all about the violence (have you ever seen a revolution without blood?) but in the right moment. You are not supposed to act carelessly like not even defending yourself but at the same time not beating the crap out of everyone or breaking everything you see just to "practise for the big moment of the liberation".

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

It's not necessary to kill people to achieve your goals. Barring them or mobbing the police all at once doesn't mean you have to kill any of them.

Policemen don't live on site, they go to work every day. Now suppose the morning before a protest, before policemen get up for work, we all block them from leaving their accommodation. There are enough of us to commit to such an act, stopping the [riot] police from having the numbers they need before they are even prepared. We find out where they live, we use numbers to our advantage and lock them out of the police station, lock them in their houses etc. House arrest. All timed before the protest where there is little resistance. Walk right up to parliament using sheer weight of numbers, knock politely and say that we are all pissed off.

Just one of many methods. Of course, the army is a problem but they won't shoot protesters especially if these protesters are a bunch of men, women and children.

[Ele'ill]

It's not necessary to kill people to achieve your goals. Barring them or mobbing the police all at once doesn't mean you have to kill any of them.

Policemen don't live on site, they go to work every day. Now suppose the morning before a protest, before policemen get up for work, we all block them from leaving their accommodation. There are enough of us to commit to such an act, stopping the [riot] police from having the numbers they need before they are even prepared. We find out where they live, we use numbers to our advantage and lock them out of the police station, lock them in their houses etc. House arrest. All timed before the protest where there is little resistance. Walk right up to parliament using sheer weight of numbers, knock politely and say that we are all pissed off.

Just one of many methods. Of course, the army is a problem but they won't shoot protesters especially if these protesters are a bunch of men, women and children.

The police doesn't sleep at night and they have bullets and chemical weapons, dogs and horses. Of course the element of surprise is useful but I think it's a bit naive to assume that the military is any different than the police regarding killing civilians even their own. With the police being as militarized as they are there isn't as much of a need for the military to come in (in the US anyways).

[Ele'ill]

Well violence in the right form. When I see anarchists (I'm not talking about people who pretend to be anarchists, I'm talking about the real deal here) smashing and breaking people's stores, houses, cars that's a bit idiotic if you ask me. The purpose of every anarchist is to bring as many people as possible closer to his ideology. If you make their lives harder (while they were hard enough) you are going to suceed the exact opposite.

usually the stuff that gets targeted aren't houses and I can't shed tears over someone's fancy car either and I'm not sure why you brought up stores as if the small business is some beacon of light for our future



If you take part in a rally or sth like it and the cops attack you well yeah you should strike back or at least defend yourself. When you start the attack you make all the people out there that are stupid

When you have to get a permit to march in the street to demonstrate and beg to those in power to not keep you impoverished anymore and you're surrounded by steel fences and riot cops you don't feel that the attack has already been issued by the state?




(when I say stupid I mean they don't know about propaganda of the media, the only left idea they've heard is Stalin, they think capitalism works etc etc) to think that anarchism is the complete chaos (something that the media want).

The media will spin and shit on everything regardless of how carefully constructed and controlled of a movement it is. There is no lesser of getting shit on. Fuck the media.



It's all about the violence (have you ever seen a revolution without blood?) but in the right moment.

But how can you decide for anyone else what that right moment is?

[leftistman]

I was a pacifist for a long time, and it's really more of an emotional state than an ideological view. The best argument against pacifism is that everybody would need to be a pacifist in order for pacifism to work. Pacifists would tell you that if one does not use any violence against the police(even out of self-defense), then people will see how corrupt and oppressive they(the police) are and people will join the revolutionary cause. In our modern state of gullibility and submission to the political needs of the bourgeoisie who control the media, far too many people will believe what they are told, and they are being told that the Occupy movement is violent and dangerous. I suppose that any revolution should start as a non-violent movement, but once they are violently provoked they must begin to defend themselves using violent tactics.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Of course, the army is a problem but they won't shoot protesters especially if these protesters are a bunch of men, women and children. Armies have been doing this ever since
ever

[Raúl Duke]

I think the premises I've seen activists hold unto pacifism are faulty.

The first most glaring, even if unstated, is the whole "PR-purpose" of pacifism: "Lets be pacifists so the media doesn't hate us and so more people join us!"

The problem from the get-go is that the bourgeois own the media and dislike/ridicule/etc you no matter what, in varying degrees. Plus, the police use of "provocateurs" already ruin this premise. Even if a protest was largely peaceful, if there was any incident that can be construed to be violent that is what the media will focus on. People need to get over what the media thinks about us, especially radical leftists.

Second, in the end it's basically a moralist opinion that assumes that the "people in charge" have a conscience and/or are "wrong/misguided." I recall that back in the late 1960s a member of a civil rights organization said something like "the establishment has no conscience" and this remains true to this day.

Even if pacifists don't talk about this premise and instead talks about how pacifism is more attractive to the public, pacifist praxis rests on this praxis. Even if you somehow recruited a vast majority of the population for your cause, if you don't actively persue it/fight for it than really the ruling class has no fear, do not care, will not change their minds (i.e. they think that what they're doing is right; and it is, for them) and they certainly won't be afraid to use riot police/the military if they tire of this spectacle.

It also runs into the assumption that the people you want on your side are anti-violence/pacifists which I think is a very generalized and stupid assumption. On this site, I've heard of people participating in demos and/or Occupy being told by some average people to "go give them hell" or something to that effect and not giving a fuck if some cops got hurt or some corporate business got damaged, etc.

Also, to be honest, a lot of people who may be for a certain cause may in fact be turned-off by overt pacifism because seriously many normal people see pacifist actions as mere sign-waving spectacles and are not interested because they correctly view these actions as futile.

Than again, arguably, activism in general may be just mere spectacle (and some normal people have taken noticed, thus mis-construed as "apathy" because they're "not doing something about it" when in reality they just don't want to waste time in dead-end spectacles which could end in risky and costly arrest/legal fees).

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Armies have been doing this ever since
ever

Russian Revolution. They did it and it still worked. :thumbup1:

[o well this is ok I guess]

Russian Revolution. They did it and it still worked. :thumbup1: Did what, got shot? Yeah, there was a lot of that.
I hardly see how this is supposed to make pacifism appealing to me.

[Philosophos]

The media will spin and shit on everything regardless of how carefully constructed and controlled of a movement it is. There is no lesser of getting shit on. Fuck the media.




But how can you decide for anyone else what that right moment is?


I totally agree about the media but at the same time helping them by making ourselves look bad is not helping either.

And ofcourse I'm not going to decide when is the right moment. There are organisations out there (ML, anarchistic etc etc) and for example these organisations see that the people start a riot THAT'S the momment when they will decide to join the riot (I'm not saying that they shouldn't do anything until then). Our power is in the numbers. If we don't have support we won't be able to do anything.

We should take more people with our side otherwise our fights will be a fly in the nose of capitalism. It makes you angry but you can make the fly go away with a wave of your hand...

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think the premises I've seen activists hold unto pacifism are faulty.

The first most glaring, even if unstated, is the whole "PR-purpose" of pacifism: "Lets be pacifists so the media doesn't hate us and so more people join us!"

The problem from the get-go is that the bourgeois own the media and dislike/ridicule/etc you no matter what, in varying degrees. Plus, the police use of "provocateurs" already ruin this premise. Even if a protest was largely peaceful, if there was any incident that can be construed to be violent that is what the media will focus on. People need to get over what the media thinks about us, especially radical leftists.


I generally agree with all the points you made here, but I disagree with what people have been arguing about the media issue being totally irrelevant.

I'm opposed to pacifism as a principle, but there are tactical reasons to support non-violence sometimes just as there are tactical reasons to support violence sometimes - they are tactics, therefore depend on the situation at any given time.

Of course the media is not going to be on our side, so that's not really a factor to take seriously (the appeal to the media). But that doen't mean that the media is also irrelevant or has no larger impact.

If this means we should "martyr ourselves" in the MLK sense of walking into an attack, then I totally reject non-violence for that because it's a moralistic thing which gets into the other problems you described.

But I do think that when we are in a place of trying to build the base of our movements, we do need to try and be aware of how the media will try and use and abuse our movements and try and counter that somehow.

For the most part it is important right now that our movements can become more popular and draw more people in - these will be potential future participants in other stuggles and if they can get involved in a strike or occupy or whatnot then they are learning how to fight and organize. Second, if we ignore the media or do not adress some of these issues I actually think it makes the arguments of the pacifists even stronger because most people new to politics are much more concerned with the influence of the media.

I think we need to learn how to be savvy about the media - recognize them for what they are, but also recognize that this doesn't mean they are pure ideology machines. We shouldn't trick ourselves into thinking we can use them, but we do need to deal with them in a concerted way when possible.

[Raúl Duke]

For the most part it is important right now that our movements can become more popular and draw more people in - these will be potential future participants in other stuggles and if they can get involved in a strike or occupy or whatnot then they are learning how to fight and organize. When I participated in Occupy, the time it was most popular in my local area was during that alleged period when the media barely reported on Occupy...

By media, I'm referring to the most established means: TV, radio and newspapers. I don't see anything worthwhile in pandering to them one bit. The activists and even the left has done this soo many times and usually it does them no good and may be more harmful, letting the media perception control what they can/should do.

People mostly heard about Occupy online, through facebook, or word of mouth.

The internet media and internet PR I consider a different beast and one that can be more malleable due to the diffused and, depending on format, grassroot nature, of this kind of media.

But something like say TV media has a tendency to be negative to social movements for the most part, whether by flippantly disregarding them as "silly hippie things" or calling them "a red menace of black bloc thugs and rioters," or whatever (depending on what they're doing). Plus there's the issue of pundits which usually in news reports on these kinds of things are always plugged in so to provide ideological propaganda usually against the protestors, whether from a right viewpoint or a so-called "left" one.

Ultimately, the established media is a bourgeois super-structural (and/or even Spectacular) institution and will deride the movement.


We shouldn't trick ourselves into thinking we can use them, but we do need to deal with them in a concerted way when possible. Sure, we may need to develop/learn media strategies but I've seen it to be issue that too much concern over media perception has ossify the level of tactics within a social movement plus at times even cause a tendency "to soften up" rhetoric. Part of this stems from the "recruit almost everyone" kind of mentality (something my local Occupy suffered heavily from to some extent and may be a factor to why it fizzled out) which I think is somewhat harmful, neither activism and much less leftism is a popularity contest.


when we are in a place of trying to build the base of our movements, we do need to try and be aware of how the media will try and use and abuse our movements and try and counter that somehow.

A lot of people who are say non-ideological and interested in being a part of or making a social movement tend to be skeptical of established media TV, etc already. They probably get their news online.

[La Comédie Noire]

I agree with the videos posted above except I'd add that the Black Bloc itself has become a ritual. One the police and protesters know all the steps to.

[Althusser]

No, but I understand why the occupy folks didn't take violent action against the cops. They'd be beaten, cuffed, and charged with assaulting an officer. That's some hard time.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Because if you attack the police, even in self-defence, you are giving them a good reason to beat/taze/arrest/kill you.

I see you're in an area where people don't shoot back at the police.

[Ele'ill]

I agree with the videos posted above except I'd add that the Black Bloc itself has become a ritual. One the police and protesters know all the steps to.

Yeah except where those frequent fringe 30 minute time frames exist involving smash and half a mil

[Let's Get Free]

Ok, here's my position on this. Violence must absolutely be used in self defense. However, the state controls every part of the armed forces, from policemen’s clubs to the atomic bomb. So long as the capitalist class is allowed to remain in control of the military, there would be no chance of dispossessing the capitalists, or abolishing their system. The primary objective of a revolutionary working class entails gaining control of the armed forces. There is no possibility of the workers successfully engaging the capitalist class in violence. If the capitalist means of co-ercion was solely the cops, then, we could organize workers’ battalions such as the Irish Citizens Army. But the tremendous nature of military force in society today preclude the possibility of any kind of victory. So capitalists has the supreme weapon, political power and with it , control of the army, navy, air and police forces and that power is conferred upon the representatives of the capitalist class by elections and that is why they invest such large amounts of wealth and much time and effort to win them. A socialist revolution cannot be successful without the complete support of the people. All power comes from the people. We hear that a certain segment of the population has the most power because it has the largest concentration of money and power. That is not true. Without support, the ruling class cannot rule, all those weapons and all that money is useless, and violent repression only delegitimizes anybody that uses it. If a group of 10 men had the only atomic bomb in the world their power would still be limited by their number. The people of the world would not pay tribute to them simply because ownership of a destructive weapon does not make a man invincible. The people of the world would fake submission, then overthrow the 10 men at the first opportunity. The example I just gave is pure conjecture, although the situation could be reduced to one man holding a pistol on 10 men. The man with the gun has the power to destroy, but not control. The 10 unarmed men could overpower the one man and take his gun. Some of them may die in the attempt, but the death of a few is often the price for liberty for all. The point I'm trying to make is that the people are the ultimate source of power. Violence would normally suggest that the conditions for change are absent - namely the prior transformation of the entire social environment and culture to the extent that even the armed forces would be thoroughly penetrated by the new ideas coursing through society. Violence, in other words, would seem to suggest minority action and as such rules out the possibility of change to a socialist society. However, I don't rule out the possibility that violence may be entailed in process of revolutionary change, so workers should organize nonviolently, but be prepared for violence coming from the ruling class.

[MarxSchmarx]

Of course, the army is a problem but they won't shoot protesters especially if these protesters are a bunch of men, women and children.
Armies have been doing this ever since
ever

True, but nobody ever said non-violence required all sides to be non-violent. Moreover this kind of thing seldom works to keep repression going and when information can spread so quickly today (short of complete martial law) this is a serious calculated risk. If the capitalist state really felt that it's army killing nonviolent children at protests was its best hope, this would almost certainly be the dying throes.

[No_Leaders]

It only works in certain situations, but of course you cannot defend a revolution with placards and signs. Nope. I think in the early onset yes, non violence has a place. It helps to bring awareness, and show people aren't just going to lie down and roll over. Now if there was a revolution (which can be peaceful mind you i.e. Seattle General Strike which successfully shutdown the city and people formed committees to make sure basic needs were still provided) but violence becomes necessary and the only option once the state uses force to crush us. Once the jackbooted thugs in police suits and camouflage turn their weapons on us.. well then, defending our revolution and our lives and the lives of our fellow brothers and sisters becomes the only viable option. If we reduce ourselves to only sticking to non-violence we reduce ourselves, our goals, and what we can achieve. Just like if we think going around recreating the R.A.F. or Red Brigades/Angry Brigades/Weather Underground is gonna be the only option to bring about revolution we will see that we're wrong there as well. You need a fine balance, there's many tactics, and a wide diversity of options we can use. The key is what's most appropriate for the given situation.

[o well this is ok I guess]

True, but nobody ever said non-violence required all sides to be non-violent. Moreover this kind of thing seldom works to keep repression going and when information can spread so quickly today (short of complete martial law) this is a serious calculated risk. If the capitalist state really felt that it's army killing nonviolent children at protests was its best hope, this would almost certainly be the dying throes. I dunno it certainly helps for both sides to be non-violent
to avoid getting ones ass kicked and all
It doesn't need to shoot em up, brah. Telescopic batons are much more "humane", and their use doesn't seem to radicalize protesters much. Nor do all the frequent police shootings we always hear about here.

[MarxSchmarx]

I dunno it certainly helps for both sides to be non-violent
to avoid getting ones ass kicked and all
It doesn't need to shoot em up, brah. Telescopic batons are much more "humane", and their use doesn't seem to radicalize protesters much. Nor do all the frequent police shootings we always hear about here.

Ummm... Okay. rarely if ever is this the doing of the military in the global north. What you describe is mostly what the cops do. The other thing with police shootings are they a very strange habit of happening to similiar individuals, very often to young men of color. They are motivated more by racism and the like than really a desperate need to save the capitalist order.