The justification of violence

[RedLenin]

I was wondering about your general thoughts on the justification of violence. I personally think violence is only justified in defence. An example would be using violence to defend yourself or someone else. I don't think this covers living in a capitalist society however. The argument of the justification of violence always comes up so I decided to create this thread on it. What are your thoughts?

[October Revolution]

The ends can very rarely justify the means but in certain cases violence must be resorted to. For instance the Cuban Revol, there was no other way the regime could be changed and the US backing stopped. So sometimes violence can be justified but the vast majority of the time it simply cannot there are usually other ways to get around problems but people are just too lazy to address them.

"I don't think this covers living in a capitalist society however." So by this do you mean it's acceptable in a capitalist soceity for something such as regime change or just normally. Because in everyday life violence doesn't need to be resorted to, even in a capitalist soceity. Only very special reasons can justify violence.

[ComradeChris]

Humans have the means to be pacifists...or the means to obliterate each other. Those are some of the choices revolving our much more advanced though. However, I personally believe (whether through mental incapabilities or genetics) that some people cannot control their agressions. The people who I'm referring to are psychopaths and "supermales" directly, but I'm sure there's other cases. FOr those of you who don't know what supermales are: they have XYY chromosomes and the doubling of the Y chromosome gives them more testosterone leading to more agression (usually, I hate generalizing). These people almost make up a majority of inmates service sentences regarding violence.

So to answer your question more directly, there doesn't necessarily need to be a justification for violence, other than that of the free-will of humans to cause harm, or live peacefully.

[Postteen]

I agree with ComradeChris about the chromosomes.I think the reasons why some people use violence are either because they're psychopathics or because the situations force them.Most of the times I think there is a justification for violence.Why CC then some people choose to cause harm?There is a reason.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Beatle [email protected] 19 2005, 04:04 PM
Why CC then some people choose to cause harm?There is a reason.
I don't know. Honestly I feel sometimes like hurting people...but I restrain myself. I can't get into violent people's mindsets (not that I would want to) to fully understand why they do what they do. It's free will...I would like to think that some people who are violent can't control it...and some people just want to be violent because of some perverse pleasure. But we lump those people into the "psychopath" category. There isn't a reason for violence other than innate behaviour. A child doesn't learn violence is wrong until disciplined otherwise. Some violent adolescents is a power thing. Maybe they were never in control as a child and therefore abuse animals to get a sense of power. To me there is no justified violence. People should harm one another, but it happens anyway...and perhaps that's why I'm so bitter most of the time.

[Paradox]

So would this chromosomes idea explain in any way why some people participate in violent sports, or why so many people enjoy violent sports? I'm talking about sports like boxing, wrestling, kickboxing, that kind of stuff. I know football is a physical and violent sport, but it's not like boxing or the others where you actually fight each other and can knock out your opponent. I don't know that this has anything to do with the original question about justifying violence, but I would assume so, since violence is taking place. In other words some people would defend these violent sports as competition and "entertainment" or whatever else they might say, where as beating your wife or child would be considered wrong. And then you have all the violence in TV and movies. I do personally believe that violence should only be used in self-defense. If someone attacks you, are you just gonna stand there and let them them beat you? I would assume not, and that you'd struggle and fight back. Violence may not be good, but when you don't have a choice, you don't have a choice.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 12:25 AM
So would this chromosomes idea explain in any way why some people participate in violent sports, or why so many people enjoy violent sports? I'm talking about sports like boxing, wrestling, kickboxing, that kind of stuff. I know football is a physical and violent sport, but it's not like boxing or the others where you actually fight each other and can knock out your opponent. I don't know that this has anything to do with the original question about justifying violence, but I would assume so, since violence is taking place. In other words some people would defend these violent sports as competition and "entertainment" or whatever else they might say, where as beating your wife or child would be considered wrong. And then you have all the violence in TV and movies. I do personally believe that violence should only be used in self-defense. If someone attacks you, are you just gonna stand there and let them them beat you? I would assume not, and that you'd struggle and fight back. Violence may not be good, but when you don't have a choice, you don't have a choice.
I consider violent sports more a form of agressive competition. They're not that violent as long as people play by the rules and can take a hit, punch, check, tackle, etc.

Yes if someone is hurting you by all means defend yourself. Or flee. There's usually the non-violent option in most cases (especially in spousal abuse). But why is that person hurting you? Did you say something to hurt them emotionally? Like there's always other factors behind the initial justification.

[Le Revolutionary]

Sometimes i beleive violence is necessary. If someone has a stranglehold on a cpountry and will not listen to reasoning and killing his own people what else are you going to do? Its sad but mans natural lust for power consumes them. They want absolute power and absolutely no threat to the loss of that power. I think under this subject the quote of Abraham Lincoln well suits me "To test a mans personality and ethics, give him power". I beleive that if a class of people are being very poorly treated and their very existance is threatened and all other resources for change have been used to the best of their ability their is no other method.

[encephalon]

violence is defined by the act of the oppressor, not the oppressed. Violence is the outcome of a refusal to submission by those the upper class considers lower. Revolutions aren't usually violent because revolutionaries go in and start shooting up everything. Revolutions are violent because the status quo violently opposes said revolution.

[Roses in the Hospital]

Agression is a basic evolutionary instinct. Without it the human race wouldn't have survived as long as it has. Pretending it's not there simply isn't an option, the key is making sure it's directed into appropriate outlets, which is why I wouldn't support a ban on boxing and such like. Maybe in a couple of centuries we will have eliminated it from the psyche all together, but for now lets not ignore it, its a lot safer to be concious of your potential for violence rather than ignoring it all together...

[alex d kid]

I've been forced into a fair share of fights in my life, but I have never tried to beat anyone. I simple let people kick my ass if they start fucking around with me. Not because I like it or think it's funny, but simply because I'm against it and don't know how to fight. I think it's silly when people brag about how good they are at fighting. However, for me violence is only justified if it is for a higher purpose such as a armed revolution, now that I would have joined.

[Postteen]

Violence is the outcome of a refusal to submission by those the upper class considers lower

Agreed, but what about a father who killed his children, raped them and ate their organs?There are cases where violenced is caused by phychopaths and has nothing to do with upper and lower class.

[Aurorus Ruber]

I'm strongly against violence myself, but there are some cases where it may be necessary to use violence to prevent worse violence. I believe there are better ways of solving problems than violence and that they should be used whenever possible. The use of force should be a last resort for when nothing else can work and the risks are too great.

[KptnKrill]

Violence plays no role in revolution. By using violence you can only topple the government or those who are physically opposed to you. Any real revolution is one that acts on the society and not on that mask of officiality that is put over society, government.

Any one can kill someone else, but you haven't really accomplished anything unless you can change there views and make them act voluntarily, instead of making people act out of fear. Fear is a great motivator, but people are generally happier and therefore more productive when they are in a good stable environment.

Violence is the ignorant man's answer.

[ComradeChris]

Violence is the ignorant man's answer.

Very well put. You summed up my beliefs in that sentence.

I feel anything can be solved intellectually, and if they can't, it's usually the least educated who resort to violence first (usually from frustration).

I heard an interesting concept however. Testosterone levels are known to affect levels of agression. Also learning for males has been linked to testosterone levels as well. So I guess they play hand in hand, intellect and violence.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Yes, the capitalist will give up his massive wealth when he learns that it's better for workers, if the means of production were community owned. :rolleyes:

[Iepilei]

The fight is how one man takes strength from another through brute-force.

Be the strength respect, popularity, or capital.

:ph34r:

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I highly recommend Slavo Zizek's book Violence it talks about this very question. He draws an important distinction between subjective, objective, and systemic. Roughly speaking, subjective violence corresponds to what with think of as an individual act of violence. A murder, assassination, and acts of terrorism all fall within the terms of subjective violence because they are perpetrated by a "subject". Objective violence corresponds to the violence inherent in the smooth functioning of the system. This includes police shake downs, taxes for war, and the notions of Marxian exploitation. Finally, there is systemic violence. This is the violence inherent in language, ideology, and the very ontology of the world itself.

What Zizek calls for, and what I agree with, is a careful deployment of violence in a revolutionary manner. It's not enough to instantiate subjective violence (kill the "pigs"/politicians). Nor is it enough to resist objective violence (alter the laws of subtle and obvious coercion and force). We must radically envision the nature of humanity, society, and language itself.

[Hit The North]

RD,

Why resurrect this ancient thread when most of the contributors are no longer active on the board? It would have been better if you'd started a new thread.

On Zizek: it strikes me as problematic to refer to language or ideology as "violence". He seems to be stretching and distorting the meaning of the word. As for "the very ontology of the world itself" being violent, what does that even mean?

Meanwhile, the category of "objective" violence also requires a "subject" (the pigs who shot De Menezes, for instance). In fact, by creating the distinction between subjective and objective violence, Zizek is allowing the conceptual space for a moral distinction to be made between the terrorism of the "amateur" (the so-called terrorist) and the violence of the professional (the State) which is not particularly helpful.


We must radically envision the nature of humanity, society, and language itself.Hmm. Sounds like a recipe for philosophical navel-gazing and, therefore, an idealist response to the problem.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I will cut the quote to deal with it in the way I can most clearly and effectively.


On Zizek: it strikes me as problematic to refer to language or ideology as "violence". He seems to be stretching and distorting the meaning of the word. As for "the very ontology of the world itself" being violent, what does that even mean?

Hmm. Sounds like a recipe for philosophical navel-gazing and, therefore, an idealist response to the problem.

Zizek, like most post-structuralists believes that language can formulate many, but not all elements of being/existence/the world. After Heidegger ,this formulation of language/existence/being, became known as ontology. Returning to the subject at hand, any given formulation of language will have excluded elements these excluded elements entail the violence (exclusion) of language. One should be able to make sense of this claim keeping this in mind so it's not simply "philosophical navel-gazing".

Moreover, it's not at all clear that an "idealist" position is inherently better or worse than any other position. I'm assuming you mean idealist position in a sophisticated philosophical sense in the form of German or Transcendental Idealism rather than a simplistic "dreamer" sense. Furthermore, it's not at all clear this position is "idealist".


Meanwhile, the category of "objective" violence also requires a "subject" (the pigs who shot De Menezes, for instance). In fact, by creating the distinction between subjective and objective violence, Zizek is allowing the conceptual space for a moral distinction to be made between the terrorism of the "amateur" (the so-called terrorist) and the violence of the professional (the State) which is not particularly helpful.

Let us be precise, the distinction made is useful insofar as it can be shown to be necessary and hold a greater explanatory power. With that in mind, let us return to the objective-subjective distinction. There are two main arguments against your assertion. It's not at all clear or uncontroversial that objective violence or subjective violence requires each other in a robust sense nor is it clear that the two can be reduced to each other.

First, a clear and precise case of objective violence can be seen in Marx's critique of capitalist exploitation in the exchange of labor in the case of commodity production. I as an individual agree freely to exchange my day's worth of labor to a capitalist for a days wage. Neither of us are subjectively forced into selling our goods to each other (let us for the moment set aside the necessity of survival because it will obscure this issue). Where lies the exploitation? The genius of Marx's critique comes from that in pointing out that my labor power used in commodity production creates value which the capitalist transforms into surplus value.

It seems intellectually dishonest to claim at some level the capitalist subject "knows" the truth. Does not the fact that he or she is unaware lend a greater power to the critique? This is a clear case of objective violence. The worker is exploited without her or the capitalists subjective knowledge or necessary ill intent. In this case, it should be clear that subjective violence/intent is radically conceptually inadequate to explain the situation.

Next, inappropriately reducing objective or subjective conditions to each other obscures, rather then elucidates, any given situation. This claim needs to be understood very precisely. It could be the case that the objective could appropriately reduced to the subjective. It could be the case that the subjective could be appropriately reduced to the objective. Finally and most importantly, it could be the case that neither can be reduced to each other and they should be understood as two distinct, yet related, fields.

A cop shoots someone in the street. Why? Subjectively, he felt like it for whatever reason. We have a subjective reason for the individual cop. However, another question clearly presents itself. What was a cop doing on the streets in the first place? To this, we must respond with a complex history and analysis of the current political, social, and historical conditions that puts the police on the street in general gives the objective reason for the shooting.

So, can and should the cop's subjective decision to shoot someone be reduced to the simple fact that he or she is just a product of the objective system? I would say clearly not. However, should we just attribute this violence to a subjective intention of a particular police officer? I would also say clearly not. Is there some sort of Hegelian synthesis to be made unifying these two on some higher level (Hegelians please forgive me this violence to Hegel)? It doesn't seem so to me, although I'm open to it if you can give me one. The course seems clear. We should conceptualize both the objective and this case. Furthermore, as revolutionaries we should demand justice and fight violence in both realms.

In conclusion, it seems clear to me then, that both the subjective can stand alone and together. Moreover, we obtain a philosophical, political, and ideological richness which can give us better grounds to clearly articulate the revolutionary struggle.

I hope you don't consider this "philosophical navel-gazing". I eagerly await your reply.

[Hit The North]

Thanks for an interesting reply which perhaps does justice to Zizek's thought. To be honest, I lack the knowledge of his work which would enable me to respond in full. However, it seems to me that you avoid my main objection which is that the word "violence" is being misused by Zizek. Our resident exponent of "ordinary language philosophy", Rosa Lichtenstein, could probably offer a better critique of this than I. Nevertheless, taking the example of exploitation, how is this an act of violence? Moreover, to "set aside" the necessity which produces the relationship and drives individuals to enter into such relations, seems to be absurdly abstract and even eliminates the central cause of why the relationship between proletarian and bourgeois takes the form it does and why it is reproduced over time. So rather than obscuring the issue, taking into account the material necessity of this relationship is really the only way of understanding it.

I think I understand the distinction you're making between the objective and subjective aspects of exploitation. Nevertheless, if we don't understand that the two are interdependent (that the objective necessity of exploitation - for the capitalist, at least - relies upon social agents to enact it) then the objective factor takes on a metaphysical character. Moreover, is it true that the capitalist is unaware of the role played by surplus value in securing profitability? If this was the case, then capitalists would not be so eager to keep wages at a minimum and to squeeze workers during times of economic crisis. Of course, this does not mean that either workers or bosses have complete consciousness of the processes underlying their situation; nevertheless any capitalist who does not act in order to secure the surplus value of her workers labour power will not be a capitalist for very long.

Again, with the example of the police shooting, it is true that in order to fully understand the concrete relation, why there are police in the first place, why they are armed and why they have power to inflict (real) violence on civilians, we need to understand the socio-historical context. But it is still important to stress that this context is a resource which individual officers draw upon to make subjective judgements and to engage in discrete acts, which inturn reproduce the objective factor.

In my previous post I suggested that the conceptual distinction between objective and subjective violence is unhelpful. I think this is the case because it allows moral judgements to be made about the agents themselves. The "terrorist" can be castigated as "evil", "psychotic", whatever: his motivation derives from subjective factors; whereas the soldier or police are individually blameless as they are bearers of objective forces. It reminds me of the distinction which is made between individual racism and institutional racism whereby individual motivation is sidelined and blame is placed on the institution over which no particular individual has control. This is often used to disguise or excuse the racist individuals who act within the institution in question.

Having just read this back, it occurs to me that perhaps we're talking past each other; but I'm at work at the moment and don't have the time to edit.