violence against 'privileged' individuals

[homegrown terror]

fairly straightforward. for the sake of the poll, generally consider violence against any sect of the population commonly considered 'privileged' by those who are not (i.e. minorities vs. whites, women vs. men, poor vs. rich etc) and choose the answer that best represents your opinion.

[Brutus]

I don't see a poll

[homegrown terror]

I don't see a poll

it's there now.

[Paul Pott]

It isn't so simple.

[Brutus]

I would understand the exploited against the exploiters, and that would be justifiable. But a race related attack would be unjustified. If a group of racists victimised minorities, and the minorities fought back, I would understand the reasons for the violence and it would be justifiable.

[Red Banana]

You kind of have to take this on a case by case basis.

[Brutus]

You kind of have to take this on a case by case basis.

Yes, there's not an absolute, definitive answer, is there?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

All people should die 100% of time, or if there is enough interest, another solution should be found.

[slum]

this really needs some context

my first, somewhat shameful thought tho was: "depends. do you mean the bourgeoisie?"
gonna go have a lie down before my unchanneled hatred consumes me

[Quail]

It depends entirely upon the circumstances. For example, if a woman hit a man because she didn't like his face, that would be completely unjustified; however if she hit him because he made an inappropriate sexual comment about her body then that could be understandable.

[Il Medico]

It depends. Are you talking about violence against the ruling class or just against those who aren't oppressed by one of the socially constructed forms of oppression? If you mean against the former I'd say yeah in a lot of case it is understandable and justifiable. Though, I'd like to note, I don't think running around offing random capitalist is a very effective tactic for class struggle (as satisfying as the idea might be at times). If you mean against the latter then again it depends. Are we talking oppressor groups like neo-nazis and what not? Or are we talking about oppressed people just attacking random white/male/straight/etc people? If against hate groups then hell yes,fuck 'em up. If against just random privileged people than no way. We shouldn't be attacking other workers simply because they are less oppressed than we are.

[homegrown terror]

It depends entirely upon the circumstances. For example, if a woman hit a man because she didn't like his face, that would be completely unjustified; however if she hit him because he made an inappropriate sexual comment about her body then that could be understandable.

hence the "usually, sometimes and rarely" options.

[Positivist]

hence the "usually, sometimes and rarely" options.

Those options don't really satisfy the concerns quail raised.

[homegrown terror]

Those options don't really satisfy the concerns quail raised.

that's why we can also comment in the thread itself, the poll is merely a thought exercise. answers can be explained, expanded and discussed in the thread.

[Quail]

that's why we can also comment in the thread itself, the poll is merely a thought exercise. answers can be explained, expanded and discussed in the thread.
But regardless, I can't say if all, some or no violence against people with privilege is understandable or justified unless I know the specifics of the case.

[cyu]

Violence against murderers is sometimes justified because of the role they play in society.

Violence against rapists is sometimes justified because of the role they play in society.

Violence against capitalists is sometimes justified because of the role they play in society.

[homegrown terror]

But regardless, I can't say if all, some or no violence against people with privilege is understandable or justified unless I know the specifics of the case.

i think you just basically answered your own question. by saying that the circumstances must be evaluated individually, you've stated that in some cases, the violence is justified but in others it is not. whether you lean more towards "usually," "rarely," or trend towards the middle (as most people who have voted so far have) is the only thing left to determine.

[Quail]

i think you just basically answered your own question. by saying that the circumstances must be evaluated individually, you've stated that in some cases, the violence is justified but in others it is not. whether you lean more towards "usually," "rarely," or trend towards the middle (as most people who have voted so far have) is the only thing left to determine.
I can't just make a sweeping statement though, because I don't know what percentage of violence towards privileged groups happens for a reason.

[homegrown terror]

I can't just make a sweeping statement though, because I don't know what percentage of violence towards privileged groups happens for a reason.

that call has to come from personal experience (either from it happening to you personally, hearing it from friends/family etc, or from literature on the subject) this isn't meant to be a "show proof that your answer is irrefutably right" it's more of a glimpse at people's points of view, which, however informed or uninformed, will have a good dose of personal opinion mixed in as well.

EDIT: i use WAY too many commas and run-on sentences. i should be ashamed!

[Starship Stormtrooper]

I voted that it is usually understandable and is sometimes justifiable. It is of course quite normal to feel anger and indignity upon being oppressed and thus quite understandable that violence should sporadically break out in many situations. I only voted that it was usually understandable (and thus, not "always") because I am privileged by many metrics and thus can not truly understand the oppression that others endure daily. I voted that it is sometimes justifiable because in some cases it might be true that those violence is initiated against are not directly involved in the maintenance of their privilege. Thus it would be in their best interests to work together and overthrow their common oppressors. In these sorts of situations, such violence between subgroups might even be quite counterproductive, especially to building class unity.

[melvin]

Based on the fact that no context at al is given, it seems safe to assume you're referring to random acts of violence. I don't support random acts of violence because that's ridiculous. There's nothing else to discuss because this question gives nothing more to talk about.

[Luís Henrique]

fairly straightforward. for the sake of the poll, generally consider violence against any sect of the population commonly considered 'privileged' by those who are not (i.e. minorities vs. whites, women vs. men, poor vs. rich etc) and choose the answer that best represents your opinion.

Unanswerable. I agree with Quail points.

Do you mean individual violence, collective violence, State violence? Violence motivated by privilege itself, or unrelated violence that merely happens to victimise someone who is privileged? What about people who are perceived as privileged, even if they are not necessarily so (think Jews in mediaeval Europe, for instance)?

Luís Henrique

[cyu]

There are those who prevent hungry people from accessing food. There are those who throw people into the streets when there is perfectly usable housing lying around vacant. There are those who prevent the sick from accessing health care.

We call these people "the enforcers of private property".

When people die because of their actions, it is no less than murder. And those responsible for attempting to justify these deaths to the general population are apologists for murder.

For every person that has died of poverty in the entirety of human history, if a king or capitalist was sleeping on his velvet pillows while their minions protected "their property", those were the years of mass murder.

If the above is capitalism, when is violence against capitalists justified? I would say it is at the point at which their behavior threatens the well-being of others. If the minions of capitalists are actively preventing a starving man from accessing food, then violence against them is justified. If capitalists are attempting to justify the actions of their minions or giving them new orders to attack the poor, then that is little different from incitement to violence, or the ordering of a hit by a mafia boss.

[Crixus]

We shouldn't be attacking other workers simply because they are less oppressed than we are.

How do we know which workers are less oppressed? I'm a white male. Standard privilege theory says I'm at the top of the hierarchy. Today I live in a shack of an appartment with little money for food. At one point in my life due to being laid off I had to beg in the streets. Was the woman who drove by every morning in the new Acrua SUV who looked at me like I was a zombie with rabies more oppressed than me? The black male cop who arrested me and took me to jail, was he more oppressed than me? When the DA in San Fransisco, Kamila Harris, signed my ass off to jail was she, a black woman, more oppressed than me? Who wins? A non able bodied overweight homeless black woman? What's the logical conclusion of this way of thinking if not this:

cgZ5k2n8k4s

What does it do to our class analysis?

[#FF0000]

What does it do to our class analysis?

I don't think anyone who subscribes to privilege theory, for all its faults, takes such a simple view of things. Of course white people aren't all better off than black people no matter what. Class, gender, race, and other factors all come into play. You just don't deal with the mountain of nonsense that comes with being gay/black/female on top of the mountain of nonsense that comes with being broke.

[Ele'ill]

I agree that this question is unanswerable but just a very vague response not written in stone, even when I am entirely on the side of someone about to do something I don't think that violence against another person is a good idea and definitely isn't the hardest hitting thing that can be done in light of other options ranging from petty revenge up into the realm of more serious acts of sabotage. This is from a political project or personal revenge position kind of. Regarding self defense from an immediately violent threat yeah I think violence is okay.

[homegrown terror]

How do we know which workers are less oppressed? I'm a white male. Standard privilege theory says I'm at the top of the hierarchy. Today I live in a shack of an appartment with little money for food. At one point in my life due to being laid off I had to beg in the streets. Was the woman who drove by every morning in the new Acrua SUV who looked at me like I was a zombie with rabies more oppressed than me? The black male cop who arrested me and took me to jail, was he more oppressed than me? When the DA in San Fransisco, Kamila Harris, signed my ass off to jail was she, a black woman, more oppressed than me? Who wins? A non able bodied overweight homeless black woman? What's the logical conclusion of this way of thinking if not this:


What does it do to our class analysis?

the point isn't that you're better off than any of the people you just listed. the point is that, all other things equal, you're better off than a woman, racial minority, gay or disabled person in the same situation. the black guy living in a shack and begging on the streets would be worse off for the fact that he'd be more likely chased off by racially profiling cops, and less likely to receive money from passersby, some of whom might be openly racist, while others react in racist ways without consciously realising it. a woman being arrested would be more likely to be sexually abused/assaulted in the process, and in court is more likely to have her testimony disregarded. you're not more privileged than EVERYONE due to being a white male, you're more privileged than others in your situation due to being a white male.

[Crixus]

the point isn't that you're better off than any of the people you just listed. the point is that, all other things equal,

All other things aren't equal though. That's where the universal broad brush painting that I'm more privileged than most falls apart. This broad brush is also used in feminist theory to paint all males as privileged oppressors of women. Apply that brush to tech workers coming to the US from India. They, by taking jobs black people could get, are oppressing blacks (really what's happening is imported cheap labor). The privialge I have living in a first world capitalist nation is then oppressive to those in the third world who make most of the useless junk we buy. Look at the class analysis that comes of that line of thought (Maoist Third Worldsism). Thats privilege theory in action within the west- it's a sort of in house maoist third worldism which positions those who are privileged as reactionary class enemies. Most radical feminists (universal male privilege) and people of color who subscribe to white privilege theory usually won't come out and say the privileged are a separate class with opposing interests but this self imposed segregation is what I saw happen when privilege theory was put into practice at Occupy. The occupy people were "oppressors" and the decolonized people were the "oppressed". This even happens within the feminist community with white women and women of color. Self segregation with privilege theory as the base. Read the below, white feminists oppressing (according to privilege theory) black feminists. It sounds like an epidemic (I can post countless examples):

http://theangryblackwoman.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/standing-is-solidarity-with-my-sisters/

http://whotookthebomp.blogspot.com/2008/04/invisible-white-privilege11-rears-its.html

http://fetchmemyaxe.blogspot.com/2008/04/taking-credit-for-other-peoples-isnt.html

http://thecurvature.com/2008/04/19/on-being-an-ally/

http://cassandrasays.blogspot.com/2008/04/sometimes-jokes-just-write-themselves.html

http://danadocus.livejournal.com/59143.html

http://elleabd.blogspot.com/2008/04/some-context.html

http://shewhostumbles.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/the-revolution-will-not-be-published/

http://florence-craye.livejournal.com/405967.html?nojs=1


How do we organize with privilege theory as the foundation? Pass out questionnaires, audit people to see what position they hold in society? How much money they make? Their work place conditions? Who gets to claim who's privilege is oppressing who? Who gets to talk? Who gets to shut up (as if a person has valid communist analysis just because the person is a woman/person of color/gay/tans/handicap etc)? Privilege theory, in practice, assumes this linear "all whites oppress blacks"..."all men oppress women"..."all straights oppress gays" and so forth. This way of organizing became apparent in the "Decolonize" split from "Occupy" but as I pointed out people are segregating into all sorts of various factions within factions, sects within sects all based on who is more oppressed which brings me to this thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/hierarchy-oppression-fragmentation-t180217/index.html

[homegrown terror]

i think you've misunderstood the point. no one here (can't speak for the rest of the world) is advocating the devaluation of any group of people simply for being in a historically "privileged" demographic, or overvaluing anyone simply for being in an "oppressed" demographic. what we're striving for is to tear down the distinctions between the groups, and the ramifications they carry in the current world. if you'll pardon the analogy, we don't want to take a white man worth a dollar to the world and a black woman worth fifty cents and make them both a straight 75 cents, we want to rip the price tags off of everyone and let them be valued for their own merit, not the merit of their skin tone or the nature of what's lurking in their pants.

[Crixus]

Way to completely ignore what I'm saying while assuming I don't understand the social impacts of racism/sexism/homophobia. Two thumbs up. What privilege theory is striving for and what it's accomplishing are two different things. This is my point.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Based on the fact that no context at al is given, it seems safe to assume you're referring to random acts of violence. I don't support random acts of violence because that's ridiculous. There's nothing else to discuss because this question gives nothing more to talk about.

Acts of violence are never random.


How do we know which workers are less oppressed? I'm a white male. Standard privilege theory says I'm at the top of the hierarchy. Today I live in a shack of an appartment with little money for food. At one point in my life due to being laid off I had to beg in the streets. Was the woman who drove by every morning in the new Acrua SUV who looked at me like I was a zombie with rabies more oppressed than me? The black male cop who arrested me and took me to jail, was he more oppressed than me? When the DA in San Fransisco, Kamila Harris, signed my ass off to jail was she, a black woman, more oppressed than me? Who wins? A non able bodied overweight homeless black woman? What's the logical conclusion of this way of thinking if not this:

What does it do to our class analysis?

You're better off than a homeless black guy because white people's applications are generally viewed more favorable when looking for a job or trying to get a place to live. But you would only be better off in areas where white people have an advantage.

Class is of course paramount. A black female DA would have a much easier time getting a loan than a white homeless guy.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I voted sometimes understandable and never justifiable. Probably i'd change that to sometimes understandable and sometimes justifiable.

Race riots are a common thing in this regard. They are not normally the best course of action, but i'm not sure what we mean by justifiable here?

[Comrade #138672]

I voted usually understandable and sometimes justifiable.

[Rottenfruit]

fairly straightforward. for the sake of the poll, generally consider violence against any sect of the population commonly considered 'privileged' by those who are not (i.e. minorities vs. whites, women vs. men, poor vs. rich etc) and choose the answer that best represents your opinion.
the sole reason for attacking that group of people in socity soly for beloning to it like in case of white people or men, never for that reason, that is bigoted

[Rottenfruit]

the point isn't that you're better off than any of the people you just listed. the point is that, all other things equal, you're better off than a woman, racial minority, gay or disabled person in the same situation. the black guy living in a shack and begging on the streets would be worse off for the fact that he'd be more likely chased off by racially profiling cops, and less likely to receive money from passersby, some of whom might be openly racist, while others react in racist ways without consciously realising it. a woman being arrested would be more likely to be sexually abused/assaulted in the process, and in court is more likely to have her testimony disregarded. you're not more privileged than EVERYONE due to being a white male, you're more privileged than others in your situation due to being a white male.
tell that to white ukraians whos yearly salery is lower then every nation in south america expect two

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Ukr_world_GNI_percapita.PNG

Blue nations have less povetry

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

Against a lot of the bourgeoisie, sure, it's justified.

Against a specific gender, race, nationality, etc, absolutely not.
Beating up a white man for being a white man is racist and sexist.

[Althusser]

If this was about oppressor vs. oppressed the answer would be always understandable and always justifiable. This is about privilege though. I'm a white male... would it be OK if some black dude beat me up for it? This is what is implied if you say it is justifiable. I think it is always understandable when people attack privileged people because when one lives in society that is hostile toward them, enslaved them, continues a legacy of inequality and hatred, the attacks are understandable.

But as for justified, it goes case by case. On a related note, have you seen the new video from this shithead? He goes on a seething rant against the privileged people of the first world and seems to find joy in their deaths and sorrow. Meanwhile his 12 year old Red Alert fans pat him on the back like the little tankie fucks they are...

PzE2x3zDoW0

[Skyhilist]

I said sometimes justifiable. Also, I was born admittedly into a pretty well off middle class family (household income of around $150k), so I could certainly be considered privileged in this regard, though neither of my parents are employers and I'm a staunch anti-capitalist. Apparently 11% of people would still find it justifiable in all cases if some just decided to beat me up for being born under such circumstances. Thanks guys.

[#FF0000]

Of course if someone attacks someone, saying "THEY'RE PRIVILEGED" doesn't cut it. Justifying violence is a heavy order and if someone's getting hurt, there's got to be a very compelling reason for it. An individual act of attacking someone doesn't erase any such "privilege", nor does it do anything to change the order of things that grant certain groups "privileges".

[Akshay!]

"Privileged" is too vague for me. There are many white communists. Obviously they're more privileged as compared to black communists but that doesn't mean violence against them is justifiable. Same argument for Male vs female. So I'd say "sometimes justifiable" depending on the particular case.

btw, who on earth has voted "never justifiable" and "never understandable"? I see 8 votes in total for these categories. Seriously? How on earth would you overthrow capitalism? With a petition campaign?

"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another." - Mao Zedong

[Luís Henrique]

tell that to white ukraians whos yearly salery is lower then every nation in south america expect two

That would be the point of the post you are responding to.

And GNI isn't salary. A country could well have a higher GNI and lower salaries than another, if its income distribution is considerably worse.


Blue nations have less povetry

Again, they have a higher GNI. If it is very unequally distributed, they might have more poverty. Especially as poverty is a relative thing.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

btw, who on earth has voted "never justifiable" and "never understandable"? I see 8 votes in total for these categories. Seriously? How on earth would you overthrow capitalism? With a petition campaign?

Perhaps doing unjustifiable things.

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

btw, who on earth has voted "never justifiable" and "never understandable"? I see 8 votes in total for these categories. Seriously? How on earth would you overthrow capitalism? With a petition campaign?

I voted never because 1) I don't think saying "THEY ARE PRIVILEGED" is enough to justify violence and 2) I took the question to mean individual violence.

[Akshay!]

I voted never because 1) I don't think saying "THEY ARE PRIVILEGED" is enough to justify violence and 2) I took the question to mean individual violence.

But "Never" is too extreme. It implies that there can, literally Never be any possibility in which violence against a privileged individual is justified. That doesn't make any sense!

Isn't a slave justified to use force against a privileged slave owner? Isn't a Palestinian justified to use violence against people who're occupying and colonizing his people?

"Sometimes" is much more appropriate because it suggests that one would decide depending on the situation/circumstances.

[Leftsolidarity]

Always understandable.

Sometimes justified.

[Nevsky]

Usually understandable and sometimes justifiable. When there is a class (or whatever else)- type of priviledged/underpriviledged relation between people, it is only natural that the weaker part will eventually turn against the oppressor. Thus, even a violent outbreak is understandable. Violence as a mean of emancipation should only be justified in stronger cases of oppression, though.

[Fionnagáin]

But "Never" is too extreme. It implies that there can, literally Never be any possibility in which violence against a privileged individual is justified. That doesn't make any sense!
No, it does not. In context, it's clearly to be taken as a statement that privilege alone does not justify violence, and that if violence is justified, it's regardless of privilege- or, for that matter, lack thereof. That you elect to read it in a bone-headedly literal manner is your problem, nobody else's.

[Akshay!]

No, it does not. In context, it's clearly to be taken as a statement that privilege alone does not justify violence,

Don't you see the difference between "privilege alone does not justify violence" and "privilege Never justifies violence". I'm simply saying that the Never option doesn't make sense if the person is a serious revolutionary.

"Never" = Pacifism - which is stupid.

[Fionnagáin]

Don't you see the difference between "privilege alone does not justify violence" and "privilege Never justifies violence".
No, I don't. They're both claims that an individual's membership of a privileged group is neither a reason or an excuse to commit acts of violence against that individual. Nothing more, nothing less.