Is revenge ever justified ?

[Romanophile]

I am surrounded by the impression that for every cruelty, a cruelty in return is justified. If somebody insults you, it is O.K. to insult back. If you get punched in the face, it is acceptable to punch back. If somebody is raped, then it’s fine if the rapist is also raped, and so on.

This hardly appears to be an effective way of minimising undesirable actions, but the short‐term satisfaction of revenge tends to triumph. Why cruelty would ever feel good for a normal person, I cannot identify it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I am surrounded by the impression that for every cruelty, a cruelty in return is justified. If somebody insults you, it is O.K. to insult back. If you get punched in the face, it is acceptable to punch back. If somebody is raped, then it’s fine if the rapist is also raped, and so on.

This hardly appears to be an effective way of minimising undesirable actions, but the short‐term satisfaction of revenge tends to triumph. Why cruelty would ever feel good for a normal person, I cannot identify it.I think in situations where people feel they have no control, there is a tendancy towards seeking or desireing revenge. It's not productive and tends to be induvidualistic though and doen't solve any underlying issues. It's also promoted in our society as a form of justice (though this is rarely ever the real prime motivation) and so I don't think that we should minimize that angle either.

If someone's house is destroyed in a flood, they generally don't try and divert rivers in an effort to seek vengance - that's because there's a general understanding that something productive can be done to avoid this tragety in the future.

[GerrardWinstanley]

I know this is nothing earth-shattering, but a thirst for revenge nearly always hurts the wronged party more than the wrongdoer. If you have a good reason to think revenge will protect others from the same individual though, just remember it's a dish best served cold.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think in situations where people feel they have no control, there is a tendancy towards seeking or desireing revenge. It's not productive and tends to be induvidualistic though and doen't solve any underlying issues. It's also promoted in our society as a form of justice (though this is rarely ever the real prime motivation) and so I don't think that we should minimize that angle either.

If someone's house is destroyed in a flood, they generally don't try and divert rivers in an effort to seek vengance - that's because there's a general understanding that something productive can be done to avoid this tragety in the future.

Even so, revenge does not need to be individualistic. Let us assume, for example, that the Bolshevik government had arrested Purishkevich, the notorious anti-Semite and pogrom-maker, and that he had been shot (the actual historical record is unclear...). Would that have been revenge? Most likely, it would have been. And would it have been individual? That is not very likely; as far as I know few officials of the NarKomJust in Petrograd were victims of Purishkevich's bandits.

And would it have been satisfying from an, undoubtedly ideological, moral point of view? I think it would have been. I think that collective revenge plays an important role in the symbolic economy that comprises ideology; from a more pragmatic standpoint, it is educational in a grisly way. Shoot one pogrom-maker, and not only will the others think twice about their actions, the social disapproval of their actions would have been communicated to them in the most forceful way. I think revenge is an important facet of the more general notion of political terror.

(Lest I am accused of having a "blood fetish" again, I am talking about people like Purishkevich or Kolchak here - notorious murderers and bandits that had drawn the hatred of the entire working people. Maoists would say that they had incurred a "blood debt".)

[Blake's Baby]

It's almost impossible to justify 'revenge' outside of religion.

If people have committed crimes against society, it's better that they work to mitigate those crimes than they be sacrified to some kind communal theatre of blood.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well true, this wouldn't be individualist, but I don't know if "revenge" would be the best reason to do such a thing. I'm all in favor of the Bolsheviks or CNT shooting a general or even a sympathizer in the head out of necessity, and for the generals or counter-revolutionary figures, then it wouldn't be "revenge" if it was done as a display of popular revolutionary will and that workers are in control and will not allow threats to the class power developed through the revolution.

The important thing of this "revolutionary terror" IMO would not be catharsis for workers through a popularly supported or mandated execution, but that it is one class consciously asserting it's right to organize its own independent power and defend itself. I am hesitant about this though just because historically such a display has been used to demonstrate class power and so I think it would need to have a popular mandate through workers councils or other organs of workers power; catharsis as a rationale, or revenge, to me seems to suggest a passive class receiving liberation, rather than a class asserting it's collective power.

[Luc]

revenge and punishments are bullshit they dont solve anything and usually reproduce what they intend to mitigate.

ex. people being abused as children becoming abusers themselves

also rape =/= punching or insulting someone

[International_Solidarity]

I think revenge really distracts from justice, and as others have stated, revenge is very individualistic. For example; we may want to see a rapist tortured, but it would be more effective and productive to put a bullet in his head and remove that danger from society. We should try to stay away from things like revenge and focus on removing threats to society or dealing with those threats effectively. Even in the setting of a school, pursuing a bully who is insulting you and attacking you in order to get revenge usually ends you up in more trouble than it's worth.

[Romanophile]

also rape ≠ punching or insulting someone

I di’n’t intend to trivialize rape, and I am sorry if I conveyed that. I can remove it.

[Blake's Baby]

I think it's reasonable to convey a whole lot of very different things that may elicit a desire for 'revenge'.

[Luc]

I di’n’t intend to trivialize rape, and I am sorry if I conveyed that. I can remove it.

i dont care if u remove it or not. i just hope u change ur mind on it

[Brutus]

If a bourgeois has ordered the deaths of proletarians, is it revenge of we are to execute them? No, it is class warfare, it is justice, it is revolutionary terror

[LOLseph Stalin]

I suppose it really depends on the situation. However, one situation where I'd say revenge is 100% justified is in a revolutionary situation. If the bourgeoisie are oppressing us for their own gain then I have no qualms in fighting back against them.

[Ele'ill]

I am surrounded by the impression that for every cruelty, a cruelty in return is justified. If somebody insults you, it is O.K. to insult back. If you get punched in the face, it is acceptable to punch back. If somebody is raped, then it’s fine if the rapist is also raped, and so on.

What if instead of revenge it's called sticking up for yourself, empowering yourself through thought and action. This doesn't mean you engage the person in the same way they did you as there are an infinite number of ways to respond in varying circumstances. It could be said that doing nothing in response is revenge.


This hardly appears to be an effective way of minimising undesirable actions,

You can't minimize something that has already happened (because we're talking about revenge or the response to) but you can act for yourself in the present and for the future.


but the short‐term satisfaction of revenge tends to triumph. Why cruelty would ever feel good for a normal person, I cannot identify it.

Isn't revolution cruel to the capitalists and their desires?

[Blake's Baby]

That's not 'revenge'. Revenge is persecuting them after we've won, imprisoning and beating and murdering them when we already have the upper hand, for something they've already stopped doing.

[Ele'ill]

My revenge against the capitalists making me work for wage etc.. (an action) will be revolution (response)

I have retaliated, responded, sought revenge before and it made me feel amazing in a lot of different ways. Knowing they were inconvenienced in a more extreme way than what they had done to me and It helped me realize courage and know my potential. I think that it is therapeutic and healthy to seek revenge as much as possible and that everyone should do it because it's fun.

[Romanophile]

What if instead of revenge it's called sticking up for yourself, empowering yourself through thought and action. This doesn't mean you engage the person in the same way they did you as there are an infinite number of ways to respond in varying circumstances. It could be said that doing nothing in response is revenge.
Being assertive is important. Being obviously cruel for one’s own satisfaction is not. I see revenge as a means to self‐satisfaction, not for the well‐being of everybody.



You can't minimize something that has already happened (because we're talking about revenge or the response to) but you can act for yourself in the present and for the future.
Fair enough.



Isn't revolution cruel to the capitalists and their desires?
Perhaps, but revolution is also kind to the vast majority of people. I dun want revolution to be mean to the capitalists. I want revolution to improve the quality of everybody’s life, including the bourgeoise. Parasitic or otherwise ‘bad’ people have potential, too, and I think that personal reform is a great way of resolving one’s past errors.


My revenge against the capitalists making me work for wage etc.. (an action) will be revolution (response)

I have retaliated, responded, sought revenge before and it made me feel amazing in a lot of different ways. Knowing they were inconvenienced in a more extreme way than what they had done to me and It helped me realize courage and know my potential. I think that it is therapeutic and healthy to seek revenge as much as possible and that everyone should do it because it's fun.
I feel sorry for you. I have a soupçon that your enemies always remain your enemies, and never friends. I have met some people whom I have hated with a passion, but as I mellowed out, and consider other sides of these people, I have turned enemies into friends. And the satisfaction of revenge quickly terminates when I notice their distress ; my sense of sympathy, if I may be so bold, is too strong.

[RedMaterialist]

Marx in 1849:

"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable."

[Blake's Baby]

And? There's difference between overthrowing the existing state of things and hunting down people to persecute afterwards.

The second is revenge; the first isn't.

[Ele'ill]

And? There's difference between overthrowing the existing state of things and hunting down people to persecute afterwards.

The second is revenge; the first isn't.


1re·venge

transitive verb \ri-ˈvenj\
re·vengedre·veng·ing


Definition of REVENGE

1
: to avenge (as oneself) usually by retaliating in kind or degree

2
: to inflict injury in return for <revenge an insult>



2revenge

noun
Definition of REVENGE

1
: a desire for revenge <motivated by revenge>

2
: an act or instance of retaliating in order to get even <plotted her revenge>

3
: an opportunity for getting satisfaction <sought revenge through a rematch>






Both of which are completely relevant to revolution. Your own example of hunting people down and torturing and executing them or whatever after the revolution is completely made up by yourself. Revenge is great.

[SergeNubret]

That depends, if someone accidentaly trips on me, no problem
If someone on purpose hit me I hit back and don't feel sorry.

If the first person does something with purpose, he has it coming back.
thats my philosophy

[cyu]

The winner was a very simple strategy submitted by Anatol Rapoport called "TIT FOR TAT" (TFT) that cooperates on the first move, and subsequently echoes (reciprocates) what the other player did on the previous move. The results of the first tournament were analyzed and published, and a second tournament held to see if anyone could find a better strategy. TIT FOR TAT won again.

In fact, TFT cannot score higher than its partner; at best it can only do "as good as". Yet it won the tournaments by consistently scoring a strong second-place with a variety of partners.

When an IPD tournament introduces noise (errors or misunderstandings) TFT strategies can get trapped into a long string of retaliatory defections, thereby depressing their score.

...above is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cooperation

In terms of game theory, tit-for-tat has been shown to be a pretty good survival strategy, and probably accounts for why memes for revenge and "an eye for an eye" are still prevalent. However a lot of human philosophies evolved by an ad hoc basis or through trial and error. The challenge for those participating in the tournament above was, could you design a strategy better than tit-for-tat?

If tit-for-tat is the best there is, then there really isn't much hope for places like IsraelPalestine. If you drop a bunch of people using tit-for-tat there, all you get is more of the same.

There's actually an assumption in playing the tournament that does not reflect reality. Choices of helping or hurting are not binary. There is a whole range of actions from hurting a lot through inaction to helping a lot. If the ultimate goal for survival strategies is to reach a state of cooperation, then people using the same strategy as you have to be brought to the state of cooperation, even when their current state is defection.

Obviously pure tit-for-tat can't accomplish this. Random forgiveness here or there can. However, if we take advantage of the fact that actions are not binary, but rather fall on a spectrum, then you can develop a strategy of continuous retaliation, but retaliation always slightly in the direction of cooperation.

That is, if they hit you for 100, you hit them for 99. If they help you for 100, you help them for 101. If they do nothing for you, you help them only slightly. Thus if you're dealing with pure tit-for-tat, you'll eventually bring them to full cooperation. If you're dealing with someone using the exact same strategy - the change would be even faster.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Revenge is like candy; it's sweet and delicious. However, if you have too much of it, there will be consequences.

[Willin']

Have you ever thought about the Talionic prinicple=eye for eye,tooth for tooth.

It's an interesting ideology

[Geiseric]

Domination isn't justified, defensive violence is hoever. There is a clear difference with the rape vs. Rape and oppress vs. revolt.

[Philosophos]

We should try as humans to never take revenge. If we do we are no different than the animals. At least we can control it. If we don't control it we are worse than them... At the same time you won't ever be civilized if you take revenge in "some special occasions" or because what the revenge victim did something terrible to you. You can't justify it...

[blake 3:17]

My greatest hope is to be delivered from the spirit of revenge.

[Ele'ill]

Being assertive is important. Being obviously cruel for one’s own satisfaction is not.

I think cruel depends on whose eyes you're looking through and as leftists I think our view should be common enough.



I see revenge as a means to self‐satisfaction, not for the well‐being of everybody.self-satisfaction but why? for what reasons? empowerment through learning how to defend (or attack on the offensive in some situations), courage, the results are broad but perhaps not getting messed with anymore, etc.. so yes I think self-satisfaction.

The 'well being of everybody' has absolutely nothing to do with anything here and is borderline victim blaming mentality- the heavy criticism and complaining about the secondary action and response instead of any type of thought at all put into the intial, with nothing of an explanation anywhere about it. That's cruel.






Perhaps, but revolution is also kind to the vast majority of people....nice words etc..We're talking about (here) the idea of revolution as a response or revenge which would be the social transformation. Not the rounding up and torturing of people like someone else said. Not the unnecessarily cruel treatment of random people. Counterrevolutionaries? Yeah different story.




I feel sorry for you. I have a soupçon that your enemies always remain your enemies, and never friends.Usually for me about the time I became a teenager, enemies were enemies for more than superficial reasons usually because they were extremely traumatically harmful to me in my life directly or played some close second minor part in being harmful to me in my life, neither of which I will ever compromise with mainly because as history has shown they don't and won't ever either.



I have met some people whom I have hated with a passion, but as I mellowed out, and consider other sides of these people, I have turned enemies into friends. And the satisfaction of revenge quickly terminates when I notice their distress ; my sense of sympathy, if I may be so bold, is too strong.So you would side with rapists, cops, bosses, violently abusive partners and parents, teachers, others willingly entrenched in serving their political or social role which puts you as a slave, punching bag, object etc..

I'll stick to revenge and sticking up for myself rather than falling in line thanks.

[Romanophile]

I think cruel depends on whose eyes you're looking through and as leftists I think our view should be common enough.
When you ‘look through someone else’s eyes,’ you are still using your own judgement.


self-satisfaction but why? for what reasons? empowerment through learning how to defend (or attack on the offensive in some situations), courage, the results are broad but perhaps not getting messed with anymore, etc.. so yes I think self-satisfaction.
Are these perks tied to revenge ?


The 'well being of everybody' has absolutely nothing to do with anything here and is borderline victim blaming mentality-
Unity ? Collectivism ? Solidarity ?


the heavy criticism and complaining about the secondary action and response instead of any type of thought at all put into the intial, with nothing of an explanation anywhere about it. That's cruel.
Have I been doing that recently ?



We're talking about (here) the idea of revolution as a response or revenge which would be the social transformation. Not the rounding up and torturing of people like someone else said. Not the unnecessarily cruel treatment of random people. Counterrevolutionaries? Yeah different story.
I want a better society.
That requires changing the current one.
Is it ‘revenge’ to change it thus?



Usually for me about the time I became a teenager, enemies were enemies for more than superficial reasons usually because they were extremely traumatically harmful to me in my life directly or played some close second minor part in being harmful to me in my life, neither of which I will ever compromise with mainly because as history has shown they don't and won't ever either.Perhaps…perhaps if they are sociopaths, then they shan’t change in the near future.

Or perhaps they need more time to mature. Perhaps if their conditionings were altered, they would change, too. It seems dogmatic to insist that they are static, dun you think ?


So you would side with rapists, cops, bosses, violently abusive partners and parents, teachers, others willingly entrenched in serving their political or social role which puts you as a slave, punching bag, object etc..
If they were willing and determined to change, then I surely could. Making peace with enemies does not necessarily mean tolerating the faults that they have full control of.


I'll stick to revenge and sticking up for myself rather than falling in line thanks.
I am not interested in arguing to death over this. I myself am already content with letting go of my hatred.

[Ele'ill]

When you ‘look through someone else’s eyes,’ you are still using your own judgement.

no I don't mean this commonly used figure of speech as literally looking though someone's eyes I mean it as a commonly used figure of speech meaning to experience as they do



Are these perks tied to revenge ?

Yes



Unity ? Collectivism ? Solidarity ?

What about them? Are these things used for liberation and total freedom or control of individual or group actions?




Have I been doing that recently ?

Yes




I want a better society.
That requires changing the current one.
Is it ‘revenge’ to change it thus?

That's the question I've been posing throughout this thread. I think it is.



Perhaps…perhaps if they are sociopaths, then they shan’t change in the near future.

Or perhaps they need more time to mature. Perhaps if their conditionings were altered, they would change, too. It seems dogmatic to insist that they are static, dun you think ?

The actions they carry out are mandatory in the roles they fill. They willingly fill the roles.



If they were willing and determined to change, then I surely could. Making peace with enemies does not necessarily mean tolerating the faults that they have full control of.

If you make peace with an enemy whose faults are still actively harming you you haven't 'made peace' with them you have surrendered to them. You have surrendered to someone who is still an enemy to your health and well being. If you're after warm fuzzy feelings maybe you could try smoking pot.





I am not interested in arguing to death over this. I myself am already content with letting go of my hatred.

way to compartmentalize and handcuff your emotions for the enemy

[Romanophile]

no I don't mean this commonly used figure of speech as literally looking though someone's eyes I mean it as a commonly used figure of speech meaning to experience as they do
I know that it is figurative. I meant that by substituting one’s judgement with your own, you are still using your judgement.


Yes
So, facing one’s fears, for example, does not grant these perks ? I am not sure if I am understanding this correctly.


What about them? Are these things used for liberation and total freedom or control of individual or group actions?
How are they not ? Having less opposition and more support seems like a pretty useful advantage in revolution, i’n’t it ?


Yes
Oh…all right…I guess I am cruel, then…


That's the question I've been posing throughout this thread. I think it is.
Is it revenge to crack open eggs to make an omelette ? Is it revenge to become dirty to clean a house ?

‘Reaction’ or ‘response’ are not better terms ?


The actions they carry out are mandatory in the roles they fill. They willingly fill the roles.
Do you lack the power to change them ?


If you make peace with an enemy whose faults are still actively harming you you haven't 'made peace' with them you have surrendered to them. You have surrendered to someone who is still an enemy to your health and well being.
I know.


If you're after warm fuzzy feelings maybe you could try smoking pot.
No thanks, I have enough financial troubles.


way to compartmentalize and handcuff your emotions for the enemy
It’s not about suppressing emotions, it is about resolving conflicts.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There's actually an assumption in playing the tournament that does not reflect reality. Choices of helping or hurting are not binary. There is a whole range of actions from hurting a lot through inaction to helping a lot. If the ultimate goal for survival strategies is to reach a state of cooperation, then people using the same strategy as you have to be brought to the state of cooperation, even when their current state is defection.

Obviously pure tit-for-tat can't accomplish this. Random forgiveness here or there can. However, if we take advantage of the fact that actions are not binary, but rather fall on a spectrum, then you can develop a strategy of continuous retaliation, but retaliation always slightly in the direction of cooperation.

That is, if they hit you for 100, you hit them for 99. If they help you for 100, you help them for 101. If they do nothing for you, you help them only slightly. Thus if you're dealing with pure tit-for-tat, you'll eventually bring them to full cooperation. If you're dealing with someone using the exact same strategy - the change would be even faster.

tit for two tats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat#Tit_for_two_tats)?

[Ele'ill]

I know that it is figurative. I meant that by substituting one’s judgement with your own, you are still using your judgement.

no clearly you still don't get it



So, facing one’s fears, for example, does not grant these perks ? I am not sure if I am understanding this correctly.you asked if they were related and I said yes because they are.



How are they not ? Having less opposition and more support seems like a pretty useful advantage in revolution, i’n’t it ? 'solidarity' working as a one way deal in order to keep a quantitative 'unity' at the expense of pretty much every god damned one isn't really an advantage unless you're a community organizer building your professional resume





Is it revenge to crack open eggs to make an omelette ? Is it revenge to become dirty to clean a house ? ‘Reaction’ or ‘response’ are not better terms ?Are eggs, as individuals and institutions of various sizes, capable of reinforcing societal normalcy that make your life terrible on a daily basis?



Do you lack the power to change them ?Yes I do but I'm not really interested in trying to convince people that they are murderous pigs mainly because they already know it and it's what attracted them to the occupation to begin with. Ever tell a cop "hey, instead of stopping and trying to search me at two in the morning why don't you quit your job and become a professional gardener"




I know.It really doesn't look like it.






It’s not about suppressing emotions, it is about resolving conflicts.But you didn't resolve the conflict you surrendered and accepted their terms.

[cyu]

tit for two tats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat#Tit_for_two_tats)?

Similar. In the tournament, there's a cost for helping others.

As mentioned above, if someone helps you for 100 and you respond by helping them for 101, you have an extra cost of 1.

This would be different from a strategy in which you respond by helping for 110 instead, or 200 instead, in which the cost would be even higher. The more cost you incur, the more you move away from tit-for-tat, and approach a fully-forgiving strategy.

Of course, you could also respond by helping for only 100.1 or 100.0001 - however, this also means it takes much longer to get to full cooperation. But if the number is small enough, the extra cost would be almost negligible.

What is the best ratio? Who knows - the tournament itself isn't even designed for such strategies - although you might adapt it to his tournament by randomizing forgiveness.

For example, if they hurt you, you normally defect as well. However, 1% of the time, you might cooperate instead. Different strategies might try different percentages... 10%, 50%, 0.001%... etc.

Tit for 2 tats would be 100% on the first defection, then 0% on everything afterwards - if we're going to apply this to, say, real countries, it's going to be pretty easy to find 2 straight instances of defections - if that leads to eternal conflict, I wouldn't say that's so brilliant =]

[cyu]

After some more thought, you also have to take into account the environment in which the strategy evolves.

For example, there are some non-poisonous animals that look like poisonous animals, and this protects them. However, this trait will only work in an environment that includes those poisonous animals. If the poisonous ones didn't exist, then the trait would be useless.

Similarly, in an environment in which tit-for-tat was predominant, but was often thrown out of whack by noise (mistakes / misunderstanding), then a strategy of full-forgiveness might be more successful... however, the same strategy might not work as well in an environment where most strategies were a lot "meaner" than tit-for-tat.

[Romanophile]

no clearly you still don't get it
Uh, all right. Whatever.


you asked if they were related and I said yes because they are.
I should have said if they were perks that were exclusive to revenge ; if it is the only way to obtain those perks.


'solidarity' working as a one way deal in order to keep a quantitative 'unity' at the expense of pretty much every god damned one isn't really an advantage unless you're a community organizer building your professional resume
I am not sure if I am understanding this. Are you saying that people can’t get along when together?


Are eggs, as individuals and institutions of various sizes, capable of reinforcing societal normalcy that make your life terrible on a daily basis?
Never.

So, in your view, how does revolution disadvantage the capitalists ?


Yes I do but I'm not really interested in trying to convince people that they are murderous pigs mainly because they already know it and it's what attracted them to the occupation to begin with. Ever tell a cop "hey, instead of stopping and trying to search me at two in the morning why don't you quit your job and become a professional gardener"
Is it too difficult to persuade them against their harmful occupations ? Are not you trying to persuade me right now ?


It really doesn't look like it.
Well, I guess I’m a liar, then.


But you didn't resolve the conflict you surrendered and accepted their terms.
Did I say that surrendering solves conflicts ?

[melvin]

There are a lot of people talking about what is revenge and what isn't in ways that don't make sense. Revenge is retaliating against someone for their actions. That is it. Whether "justified" or not.

As for whether or not revenge is ever "justified" in a philosophical sense, that is up to individual interpretation, as is every scenario where an action is determined to be "just" or "unjust".

[Decolonize The Left]

I am surrounded by the impression that for every cruelty, a cruelty in return is justified. If somebody insults you, it is O.K. to insult back. If you get punched in the face, it is acceptable to punch back. If somebody is raped, then it’s fine if the rapist is also raped, and so on.

This hardly appears to be an effective way of minimising undesirable actions, but the short‐term satisfaction of revenge tends to triumph. Why cruelty would ever feel good for a normal person, I cannot identify it.

I bolded a part of your OP as this is the key to your question. It appears as though you are attempting to evaluate the act of revenge from a preventative standpoint: i.e 'is advocating revenge an effective deterrent to other violent acts?'

Unfortunately, this misses the real point of revenge which is personal satisfaction. Most people don't seek revenge because they think it will lead to a conclusion above and beyond making them feel better about what happened. So for example:
Some dude kills your parents. You want revenge and go kill that dude. Well, he's dead - so he obviously can't kill anyone else. Now you may attempt to justify your act thusly (preventative), but the truth is that you really just wanted to kill him so you did. If you wanted to prevent further murders you could have incarcerated him, etc...

So really what sounds like you're asking is: is an-eye-for-an-eye (revenge) an acceptable moral code for dealing with violence?

[brigadista]

"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves".

[markb287]

I am surrounded by the impression that for every cruelty, a cruelty in return is justified. If somebody insults you, it is O.K. to insult back. If you get punched in the face, it is acceptable to punch back. If somebody is raped, then it’s fine if the rapist is also raped, and so on.

This hardly appears to be an effective way of minimising undesirable actions, but the short‐term satisfaction of revenge tends to triumph. Why cruelty would ever feel good for a normal person, I cannot identify it.

There is a brilliant passage in Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals, in the second essay, that describes this impulse. For Nietzsche, punishment is not a natural impulse. Rather, the concepts of torture, cruelty, and punishment are grounded in social practices aimed to produce a socially "conscious" individual.

This practice is the creditor/debtor practice, in which the debtor is made to agree to an instance of cruelty in "exchange" for incurring his debt from a creditor. What this practice does is instill into people a kind of awareness (a conscience, so to speak), in which they take accountability for their actions.

This conscience is very much linked to our sense of self. We are who we are in so far as we are "responsible" for what we do. So the desire to punish and torture is tied also to our sense of responsibility.

[Ele'ill]

"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves".


I'm optimistic

[Arakir]

I would say that revenge could be justified. Since, with acts of revenge, there are repercussions for doing something bad, acts of revenge provides an incentive for people to not do bad things in the first place.

Suppose there was someone who went around punching random people. If no one did anything to stop him, he could just keep on punching as many people as he wants. However, if people beat this person up for punching people, there's a good chance that he would stop.

[Turinbaar]

Revenge may be necessary if not always justified. Revenge was an important element in the war against Fascism, but at the same time things like Hiroshima and Hamburg were acts of vengeance that were degrading to the actors.

These atrocities were not justified acts of vengeance, but in the case of what to do with the regime after its leaders were in custody, does anyone here suggest a better (or more just) way to deal with the Nazi war criminals than what was done? Indeed considering how many of them were actually taken aside and employed by the US and USSR, (Reinhard Gehlen was head of West German intelligence until 1968, for example) wasn't it rather tragic that a greater revenge was not visited upon these murderers?

[cyu]

a better (or more just) way to deal with the Nazi war criminals than what was done? Indeed considering how many of them were actually taken aside and employed by the US and USSR


There are two different and not necessarily compatible issues here - justice and pragmatism.

Justice involves doing the "right" thing and determining just what should be considered the "right" thing, issues of morality, keeping society whole, etc.

Pragmatism is what those in power believe they can get out of the situation, whether just or not.

You can use the skills of men who have done terrible things, and you can even use the knowledge gained through horrible acts, and it can help your society survive, but it doesn't mean justice has been served. Just because something proves useful doesn't mean those acts were just, moral, or anyone should ever encourage them again.

On the other hand, what does serve justice? It becomes a bit of a philosophical and sociological question. Is execution just? Does it solve the problems you're trying to solve? If it is not adequate, is life imprisonment enough? Torture?

Personally if I were in charge of dealing with Nazis that would otherwise have been executed, I would instead work them over with teams of leftist psychologists. There's little doubt that propaganda works when mixed with the right psychological tools - their own efforts in Germany proved that. So I would use the same tools on them. Challenge all their assumptions, destroy the foundations of everything they think they believe in, and make them recant their entire ideology - but not just a reluctant recantation, but work them until their recantation is sincere.

And if that doesn't work? Personally I'd say given the right tools, environment, psychological knowledge, and willingness to adopt certain political positions, the only people who can't get it to work would be those who don't have enough of one of those things =]

And what is the point of all that work? If they went that route, I would dare say there would be no neo-Nazi movements today, since their intellectual "fathers" would have long since abandoned their own ideology as silly misguided mistakes.

[markb287]

I say that we need to first clarify why we need justification in the first place. Why would any action, whether from revenge or love or apathy, need justification? What does justifying do? Why does it matter? What good will making an action seem "reasonable," after the fact, do us?

The question is not whether or not revenge is justified, but in which cases can revenge be allowed without any enforcement, criticism, or punishment from certain others?

The work of a judge (in this case, us) is not to determine whether something is "justified," but to affirm or bring to life a certain interpretation of the law or of "justice" which will provide some kind of meaning for the act being judged.

In my view, the image of justice does not include revenge, if we can think of revenge as an act of violent exchange, violence for violence. For me, justice is about about being in harmony with oneself and others. Revenge dislodges this. Revenge implies making others responsible for your feelings, which is why ultimately revenge doesn't make you feel better. Rather, it simply expresses how dependent you've made yourself on the person you want to take revenge against. You think by taking revenge, by making someone feel pain or even die, you'll end your suffering. But the opposite is true.

True justice, if it exists, and if it is actually possible, is about identifying and taking responsibility. You are responsible for your feeling of loss, not anyone else. No one can take responsibility for your feeling of loss - that is uniquely yours.

Revenge won't make you less responsible for what you do; it'll only heighten it. When someone acts out of justice, out of an interpretation of justice, he is taking responsibility for himself and his actions/feelings. It's not from a feeling of revenge, but of responsibility.

Justice is essentially about identifying and taking responsibility; revenge is about trying to pass it off.

[Turinbaar]

Personally if I were in charge of dealing with Nazis that would otherwise have been executed, I would instead work them over with teams of leftist psychologists. There's little doubt that propaganda works when mixed with the right psychological tools - their own efforts in Germany proved that. So I would use the same tools on them. Challenge all their assumptions, destroy the foundations of everything they think they believe in, and make them recant their entire ideology - but not just a reluctant recantation, but work them until their recantation is sincere.

This reminds me of how celebrities can waive away their past blunders by going to rehab. It's television gold actually. The main thing I would be concerned about in your psychology scheme is the possibility of you being pushed aside and replaced by an ex-Nazi who is better versed in the inquisitorial methods you propose.

The Goering family was involved in genocide before the Nazis even existed, so I doubt that mere propaganda and your other tools would convert the most committed fascists.

[Comrade #138672]

Only bourgeois moralists dare to say that revenge is never 'justified'. It's almost as if they are disarming the proletariat that way: "Do not be angry and do not take revenge for all the wrongdoing. Do everything according to the Law and you will be fine."

[cyu]

replaced by an ex-Nazi who is better versed in the inquisitorial methods you propose.


Actually I don't propose psychological change by torture, if that's what you're implying. The Nazis didn't torture every German until they started hating Jews. It was a very different process - one in which Germans were made to believe the Nazis were on their side.



The Goering family was involved in genocide before the Nazis even existed


There are always people with a good deal of psychological skills. However, whether they get in power depends on whether their other political beliefs are accepted by those who happen to be in power during their lifetimes.



I doubt that mere propaganda and your other tools would convert the most committed fascists.


First I would ask that if you believe in Social Darwinism. If you do, then you would be correct in saying you have no hope in converting committed Nazis. If you don't believe in Social Darwinism, but can't make a convincing argument why it's wrong, then I would say your belief is based more on emotion than logic, reasoning, or any other scientific basis.

[Turinbaar]

Actually I don't propose psychological change by torture, if that's what you're implying. The Nazis didn't torture every German until they started hating Jews. It was a very different process - one in which Germans were made to believe the Nazis were on their side.

I wasn't, inquisitorial methods can be psychological as well. Anti-semitism is a product of thousands of years of church propaganda rhetoric and deeds, not merely a single regime.


First I would ask that if you believe in Social Darwinism. If you do, then you would be correct in saying you have no hope in converting committed Nazis. If you don't believe in Social Darwinism, but can't make a convincing argument why it's wrong, then I would say your belief is based more on emotion than logic, reasoning, or any other scientific basis.

That is a rather strange assertion to say that only a Social Darwinist can properly disagree with you. Where is the logic in that conclusion, as opposed to the obvious emotions that underlie it? One doesn't need to hold any such view to suspect the limits of psychological manipulation.

[Turinbaar]

To clarify, when I mention the Goering family and genocide I am talking about the material pre-contitions for later genocide in Nazi Germany (your mention of Social Darwinism seemed to suggest that I said Goering inherited a genocidal gene or something). Their governing of Namibia consisted of raising a brown-shirted army to destroy the Herero people. After the first World War the disbanded army would return unemployed to Berlin, with killing for a brutal empire being the only way of life they had known. They would then constitute the Freikorps. Genocide in this way was a product of the imperial policies which engrained violence into the mass psychology of its soldiery. In the basic logic of capitalism, Goering, along with his cohorts, concluded that the profitable disasters of the past could be recycled (brown shirts and all) to their benefit, when combined with the even longer history in Europe of fanatical religious anti-semetic tradition.

All of this is what I mean when I say that I doubt that a really crack team of psychologists can do the sort of conversions you say.

[cyu]

Anti-semitism is a product of thousands of years of church propaganda rhetoric and deeds, not merely a single regime.


Fact is, just about every ideology is hostile against other ideologies. Capitalists vs communists. Keynesians vs Monetarists. Stalinists vs Trots. Anarchists vs "anarcho"-capitalists. I don't see it as anything particularly new.



That is a rather strange assertion to say that only a Social Darwinist can properly disagree with you


No, you misunderstand me. What I mean is that only someone who doesn't believe in Social Darwinism can properly disagree with Nazism. The point is that if you can argue against Social Darwinism, Nazism doesn't have much of a leg to stand on (neither does most pro-capitalist ideologies, for that matter).



I doubt that a really crack team of psychologists can do the sort of conversions you say.


Now we're talking about the environmental aspect mentioned above. When you have a pro-fascist army running around, that is a completely different environment that one in which a Nazi is on death row. The power balance would have completely shifted.

[Turinbaar]

Now we're talking about the environmental aspect mentioned above. When you have a pro-fascist army running around, that is a completely different environment that one in which a Nazi is on death row. The power balance would have completely shifted.

Even with environmental factors accounted for, there is to be considered the self-fulfilling logic of fanatical religious anti-semitism, which is that absolutely all outside conditions and information can be internally re-integrated into a paranoid jewish conspiracy theory. Arguments basing themselves on, or even asserting the existence of objective reality can be rejected on that very basis.

[human strike]

Nina Power's show on revenge a few weeks ago was brilliant: https://soundcloud.com/resonance-fm/17-00-00-the-hour-of-power-10

[homegrown terror]

i can see revenge being justifiable as a future deterrent, i.e. someone robs your family, you track them down, rough them up and rob them back, and it sends a message that you're not to be fucked with.

[blake 3:17]

Only bourgeois moralists dare to say that revenge is never 'justified'. It's almost as if they are disarming the proletariat that way: "Do not be angry and do not take revenge for all the wrongdoing. Do everything according to the Law and you will be fine."

Not at all. To speak against the spirit of revenge is not to question the anger of the oppressed or to say that vengeful retaliation is is inherently immoral.

Revenge can become its own end, its own means, and each can serve to justify each other more and more, worse and worse. The abused becomes the abuser and the cycle repeats in endless monotony and endless variation.

Pol Pot's Communism was animated by this, and gained acceptance by people who had every right to be angry.

[cyu]

there is to be considered the self-fulfilling logic of fanatical religious anti-semitism

Every ideology has to start somewhere. Even cults. You don't have a child that is suddenly born and Bam! he's an Orthodox Jew or Unitarian Universalist. One of the reasons cults succeed is because they have a captive audience. But there's more to it than that in modern propaganda.

If you look around you, you may feel you are free and not living within a cult. Yet in America, people think that those who are not Democrats or Republicans are fringe and borderline crazy. That too is a belief that is instilled in people using successful psychological and propaganda tactics. Framing the debate, false dichotomies, there are plenty of tactics (you might also check out some of the links at the bottom of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_stacking)

I would say the belief that some people's beliefs can't be changed is itself a faith-based belief that borders on being cultish, particularly if you're claiming that beliefs, that you believe are objectively wrong, can't be changed. If any belief can't be changed, it may just be that your own point of view is merely subjective, and that you fear the other side's beliefs may in fact be more true than your own.

If one's own beliefs are weak, one would generally fail to convince others. The result is that they start believing that people can't be changed. If one's own beliefs are well thought out, they would tend to succeed in convincing others - and the results would be that they believe it is easy to change people's minds.

You might find these links interesting:
http://comments.deviantart.com/1/309734889/2634658369
http://comments.deviantart.com/4/16797865/2828154357

[Turinbaar]

Every ideology has to start somewhere. Even cults. You don't have a child that is suddenly born and Bam! he's an Orthodox Jew or Unitarian Universalist. One of the reasons cults succeed is because they have a captive audience. But there's more to it than that in modern propaganda.

If you look around you, you may feel you are free and not living within a cult. Yet in America, people think that those who are not Democrats or Republicans are fringe and borderline crazy. That too is a belief that is instilled in people using successful psychological and propaganda tactics. Framing the debate, false dichotomies, there are plenty of tactics (you might also check out some of the links at the bottom of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_stacking)

Yes but these instilling techniques can remain internally beyond the reach of therapy. Their is a basic difference to be enforced between the absolute paranoia of anti-semitism, and the vulgar political ignorance of the average american. The latter can be appealed to with reference to objective reality, whereas the other can easily dismiss it as jewish lies.



I would say the belief that some people's beliefs can't be changed is itself a faith-based belief that borders on being cultish, particularly if you're claiming that beliefs, that you believe are objectively wrong, can't be changed. If any belief can't be changed, it may just be that your own point of view is merely subjective, and that you fear the other side's beliefs may in fact be more true than your own.

Missions of conversion are more cultish to me. It's not faith based to say that people can successfully resist contact with and appeals to reality (what else is the history of religion?).


If one's own beliefs are weak, one would generally fail to convince others. The result is that they start believing that people can't be changed. If one's own beliefs are well thought out, they would tend to succeed in convincing others - and the results would be that they believe it is easy to change people's minds.

You might find these links interesting:
http://comments.deviantart.com/1/309734889/2634658369
http://comments.deviantart.com/4/16797865/2828154357

This sounds especially cultish to me, as if to say the heathens haven't converted because your own faith isn't strong enough. No doubt, people can change if they take it upon themselves, but they can't simply be reprogramed from outside. As well thought out as your arguments are, how are you going to convert someone who dismisses you as a jewish agent?

Btw that foreverrussia1 guy would make a rather confused authoritarian leader wouldn't he?

[cyu]

how are you going to convert someone who dismisses you as a jewish agent?



I would say you could even present yourself as pro-Jew and still win. If you were at a Nuremberg prison, obviously you can't exactly claim you're there because you're secretly plotting against the Jews. Even if that was something you wanted to claim, it's not exactly going to get you the results you want.

But you don't get people to change by lecturing to them. You get them to change by analyzing their history. When I say no child just suddenly becomes an Orthodox Jew or Unitarian Universalist, what I mean is that everyone has a journey through life and the path they traveled through led them to whatever belief system they happened to have at the time you encountered them. The same applies to Nazis or Branch Davidians.

At what point did you decide you were more of a leftist than a right-winger? At what point did you decide that there was no hope for some Nazis? Would you say that Nazis are more steadfast in their beliefs than other cults? Why or why not?

Anyway, their ideological path from birth to present had many forks along the way. And it's not just major forks every few years, but things that happen on a routine basis - although they themselves probably can't remember all the possible forks. But for the ones they do remember, why did they choose one turn and not the other? At every fork is the possibility that their ideologies would have ended up differently. In fact, at every fork, different influences could have pushed them down a different road.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People - "Show respect for the other person's opinions. Never say 'You're Wrong.'" It may seem silly to apply this to Nazis, but it is actually essential for getting inside their minds. Even when they accuse you of being a Jewish agent, if you just deny it, you only end up in a debate about whether you really are or not, and they just spend all their time thinking up reasons why you could be, digging themselves deeper into their trench.

If you wanted to sound like a psychiatrist, you might respond merely by asking why they believe you're a Jewish agent, and ask how that makes them feel. If that seems too touchy-feely to you, you could just say you are, and just leave it at that. Whether I'm a Nazi or Jewish agent doesn't change the observation that we're both reading notes on a website. Would you accuse me of Nazi or Jewish lies if I make that observation? If not, what other statements could I say that would also be taken for granted?

[Ocean Seal]

No its not, by its definition its an irrational response.

[Djoko]

Revenge is a human thing

[Sky Hedgehogian Maestro]

I never believe that violence is ever the answer, but with these goddamn monkeys called humans running things, I'm afraid it's often the only way to get things done.