violence vs pacifism

[Tree_Hugger]

How many people on this site support the use of violence in attaining a goal? what about if the specific goal is as important as a revolution? what are some justifications for the use of violence? personaly i support extreme pacifism. . . . .

[FinnMacCool]

Both should be utilized whenever neccesary. It really depends on the situation. Pacifiscim I think is better for propaganda though. Just look at Gandhi. But I think violence is neccesary for defense

[violencia.Proletariat]

Violence is a necessity in revolutions. Pacifism is a very crazy idea, the modern pedestal it's placed on disguises it's irrational ideas.

[Tree_Hugger]

Pacifism is a very crazy idea, the modern pedestal it's placed on disguises it's irrational ideas.

But the very principle of violence is hurting other people! That doesn't seem irrational to you? Doesn't it strike you as being wrong to cause another living, feeling creature pain and anguish? Pacifism is the willingness to love and tolerate and to posses patience, faith and perseverance; it is the ultimate form of dedication to cause. Violence is apathy to the condition of another person; it is hate and malice and cruelty, and it is the easiest/shoddiest way of a accomplishing a means. How can violence be justified at all, ever?

[Morpheus]

Sometimes not using violence allows oppression to continue. In those cases, non-violence can cause even more pain and anguish than violence. In addition, violence can sometimes reduce the pain and anguish one person or group experiences (by preventing violence/oppression done to them) by causing a different group (oppressors) to experience that pain and anguish instead. Effectively, transferring pain & anguish from one group/person less deserving of pain & anguish to another person/group more deserving of pain & anguish.

[Comrade-Z]

But the very principle of violence is hurting other people! That doesn't seem irrational to you?

In certain cases it seems perfectly rational.

It depends on what foundation your values rest on.

For me, it is egoism--what I value depends on my perceived material self-interest.

If I perceive it in my self-interest to be kind and non-violent to a person, the rational thing is to do that. If I perceive it in my self-interest to kill another person, the rational thing is to do that.

I'm guessing that you are operating from an entirely different value system.


Pacifism is the willingness to love and tolerate and to posses patience, faith and perseverance

Faith? Uh-oh, I know where this is heading...


it is the ultimate form of dedication to cause.

"Revolution ceases to be the moment it calls for self-sacrifice." -Graffiti of May '68 in France.

And if you are committed to maitaining pacifism when faced with Nazis or religious freaks, sacrificing yourself is what you will be doing. If that's your thang...then it sounds like you aren't really interested in revolution at all.

Of course, Ghandi is given way too much credit for India's independence. It took millions of Indians (many of them resisting very violently) before Britain got booted out.


it is the easiest/shoddiest way of a accomplishing a means.

I can tell you it's definitely not the easiest means. Just ask the survivors of the Durruti Column from the Spanish Civil War (Hint: there weren't many).

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

But the very principle of violence is hurting other people! That doesn't seem irrational to you?

We only will hurt those who are attempting to re-enslave the working class.

If they use guns on us, giving up or becoming a martyr is not an option for a communist.



it is hate and malice and cruelty, and it is the easiest/shoddiest way of a accomplishing a means

you are wrong, we dont generally hate the counter revolutionaries. We hate the system of capitalism which lets people starve, far more painful than a gunshot, and so people who act against a revolution deserve to be put down.

If someone wanted to kill you, and you have to defend yourself, you dont do it out of hate, malice or cruelty, you use your common sense and come to the conclusion that, better them than you.


How can violence be justified at all, ever?

Lions need to eat, so they go and hunt something, and when they find a tasty looking animal, they use violence. They then survive and are happy.

Same with humans, except we dont generally hunt other humans or eat them. We do use violence to accomplish a task when it is the rational choice.

Take world war 2. MASSIVE violence on an unprecedented scale. the opposition to the nazi's were only pascifist, then the whole world would be nazi right now. Violence was neccessary in order to counter an even worse type of violnce. The allies were justified in every nazi that they managed to kill.



it is the easiest/shoddiest way of a accomplishing a means

Well i dont have much experience in violent situations, but can you imagine how scary it would be to have someone shooting at you? I would say defending your self would be very hard, not something easy at all!


personaly i support extreme pacifism. . . . .

If you are or were a communist, and the working class became aware of its subordination to capital. And you encouraged the working class to be pacifist, and then they were repeatadly put down, some killed, and the rest oppressed worse than before, would you feel that this was the right stance??

[Brekisonphilous]

If the revolution could be successful with pacifism it would almost gurantee success. It would take the marjority, or close to it. and thats some successful organization. I think pacifism should be the main goal, and if it doesn't work, it escelates to violence. And as Finn said, violence should only be used when it is needed. It is not always necessary.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:09 AM
If the revolution could be successful with pacifism it would almost gurantee success. It would take the marjority, or close to it. and thats some successful organization. I think pacifism should be the main goal, and if it doesn't work, it escelates to violence. And as Finn said, violence should only be used when it is needed. It is not always necessary.
Do you really see those in positions of power relinquishing that power without putting up a fight?

I think advocating pacifism in the face of state violence is absurd and defeatist. Pacifism (and pacifists like Gandhi- but lets not get started on that racist turd) are held up as some sort of unassailable ideal, when in fact they're often impractical or counterproductive.

[Brekisonphilous]

Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 24 2006, 04:03 AM

Do you really see those in positions of power relinquishing that power without putting up a fight?

I am positive there will be. And that is when violence is needed.
But I think pacifism should never just be ignored, it can work. Wherever it is possible, it should be implemented. no matter how rare that may be.

[kurt]

Originally posted by Brekisonphilous+May 23 2006, 08:30 PM--> (Brekisonphilous @ May 23 2006, 08:30 PM)
Mujer [email protected] 24 2006, 04:03 AM

Do you really see those in positions of power relinquishing that power without putting up a fight?

I am positive there will be. And that is when violence is needed.
But I think pacifism should never just be ignored, it can work. Wherever it is possible, it should be implemented. no matter how rare that may be. [/b]
That's not pacificism. That's the exact same thing most people in this thread are advocating.

We don't have to committ ourselves to any particular strategy. We can take a pragmatic approach and use either tactic depending on circumstance. Pacificism doesn't help much when you're being shot at.

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 09:50 PM
Lions need to eat, so they go and hunt something, and when they find a tasty looking animal, they use violence. They then survive and are happy.

Same with humans, except we dont generally hunt other humans or eat them.
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jlynch/Cours...xts/modest.html (http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jlynch/Courses/95c/Texts/modest.html)

=D

In all seriousness though:

If the revolution could be successful with pacifism it would almost gurantee success. It would take the marjority, or close to it. and thats some successful organization.
Imagine that the only way to achieve a real 'pacifist revolution' was to convice your entire community,(if urban, including many blocks, and perhaps a sufficiently sized portion of the agricultural hinterland) to withdraw their labour from the market and to produce goods and services for the sake of their own material subsistence, and that of their community. And imagine that this worked! And that everyone who wanted to participate in the community would simply peacefully withdraw from the market and put their labour toward the production of material goods to be distributed and consumed equitably (and free of cost) by all of the members of that community! What a success!

But then don't you think that the state (whichever one that this 'revolution' happened to be living under) would miss that tax revenue, and abhor individuals' withdrawl from their precious money-making beast (the economy)? Don't you think that capitalists would lay claim to buildings, factories, entire industries, to thwart the success of the people's liberation? Don't you think that they might actually send police, the militia, and other gun-toting agents of the state to break up the party and force us all back into wage slavery?

That's what I think would happen. We may be able to start a successful communist society without necessarily using violence as part of a revolution, but I guarantee that in this scenario you would certainly be forced to use violence to maintain it.

[Brekisonphilous]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 04:43 AM

Imagine that the only way to achieve a real 'pacifist revolution' was to convice your entire community,(if urban, including many blocks, and perhaps a sufficiently sized portion of the agricultural hinterland) to withdraw their labour from the market and to produce goods and services for the sake of their own material subsistence, and that of their community. And imagine that this worked! And that everyone who wanted to participate in the community would simply peacefully withdraw from the market and put their labour toward the production of material goods to be distributed and consumed equitably (and free of cost) by all of the members of that community! What a success!

But then don't you think that the state (whichever one that this 'revolution' happened to be living under) would miss that tax revenue, and abhor individuals' withdrawl from their precious money-making beast (the economy)? Don't you think that capitalists would lay claim to buildings, factories, entire industries, to thwart the success of the people's liberation? Don't you think that they might actually send police, the militia, and other gun-toting agents of the state to break up the party and force us all back into wage slavery?

That's what I think would happen. We may be able to start a successful communist society without necessarily using violence as part of a revolution, but I guarantee that in this scenario you would certainly be forced to use violence to maintain it.
This is exactly more what I was thinking. I wouldn't really consider myself a pacifist i guess. But I don't like guns unless they are needed for defense. (in this case maintaining the new society.)

Also, in addition to what you said, What if groups of the proles raided and held media stations nationwide around the country? Providing they maintained protection of power and facility and used it to broadcast to reach more people, while preventing capitalists for trying to restore order via the media. With the new Media age there are new possibilities since so many people are connected by it, and word spreads much more rapidly if media could some how fall in the hands of the proles carrying out the revolution.

[RebelDog]

Capitalism is the most violent repulsive system anyone could dream up. If it takes violence to consign it to history, then so be it. I have no qualms about violence. Sometimes when I get frustrated I think of revenge.

[Zero]

Countries have already tried peaceful voting-in of Socialism. In fact they were trying it in Indonesia when the Indonesian government decided to carry out a mass slaughter of Communist party members, helped along by CIA trained Contras of course. Can't have a mass slaughter without secret US involvement!

That left the country ripe for Corporate Fascism! Ohh happy days! Now the children and factory workers who are pulling 36 hour (on average) shifts of manual labor constructing shoes, or sewing emblems on shirts (its actually less money to pay them then it is to have a machine do it.) have a ~13 Billion (I think) dollar (US) debt to pay back to the world bank.

If you actually buy clothing anymore, make sure NOT to buy ANYTHING that was made in Indonesia. If you can, bring it to the manager and ask if it was 'sweat-free'. If so, you can at least feel glad about shoplifting it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_fascism

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 02:12 AM
Just look at Gandhi
Gandhi did not alter the means of production in India. Exchanging one set of tyrants for another by peaceful means is easy - most nations do it once every 4-5 years. Changing the fundamental structure of society however, that is upending the relations of production, will require violence.

[Herman]

That doesn't seem irrational to you? Doesn't it strike you as being wrong to cause another living, feeling creature pain and anguish? Pacifism is the willingness to love and tolerate and to posses patience, faith and perseverance; it is the ultimate form of dedication to cause.

Not when you have a gun aiming at your head.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+May 24 2006, 10:15 AM--> (ComradeOm @ May 24 2006, 10:15 AM)
[email protected] 24 2006, 02:12 AM
Just look at Gandhi
Gandhi did not alter the means of production in India. Exchanging one set of tyrants for another by peaceful means is easy - most nations do it once every 4-5 years. Changing the fundamental structure of society however, that is upending the relations of production, will require violence. [/b]
Please let's not forget that Ghandi was a racist who defended an ancient feudalistsic system, the caste system. He was also only partially succesful. He might have got rid of the British Impierlaists but India was also divided in two in a great act of ethnic clensing. Also, it wasn't even Ghandi, the Indian Communist movment was huge and India was on the verge of revolution. The only reason that Ghandi was kept alive was that he represented a liberal alternative who didn't threaten British troops.

On pacifism in general, I am not a pacafist but I do not have a thirst for violence. I think that as socialists we should use whatever tactic pushes class consciousness further and benifits the working class' position. Be it peaceful or otherwise.

[Rawthentic]

I believe that it is better to promote pacifism NOW, since violence would be extremist at this point in history. But as capitalism and its crisis progresses, so will government and police brutality. I beleive this wil prompt us to to defend ourselves through violence, if necessary. I personaly dont advocate violence, but i believe it will be necessary.

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 12:18 AM
This is exactly more what I was thinking. I wouldn't really consider myself a pacifist i guess. But I don't like guns unless they are needed for defense. (in this case maintaining the new society.)

Also, in addition to what you said, What if groups of the proles raided and held media stations nationwide around the country? Providing they maintained protection of power and facility and used it to broadcast to reach more people, while preventing capitalists for trying to restore order via the media. With the new Media age there are new possibilities since so many people are connected by it, and word spreads much more rapidly if media could some how fall in the hands of the proles carrying out the revolution.
Most of us here would argue that violent revolution is self defense. It's not so much of a leap to define "violence" as famine, disease, war, and (sweatshop brand) slavery. All of these realities of the world today are violence against the working class, so in the interests of the working class's "self-defense", I am all for a violent and bloody revolution.

Expropriating wealth from the ruling class will take blood and guns, no matter how much we all would prefer for it to be peaceful. Violence is a necessity. Do you think that the billionaires of the world, fascistic presidents, prime ministers, Royal families, (and even media moguls,) do you think that these people will simply stand idly by and let the working class redistribute "their" wealth? Take back "their" nations? I think not.


It will take war. Believing that revolution is possible without it is idealistic and naive.

[bolshevik butcher]

Obviously right now in the western world we are not going to be running to the barricades but at some point it may be necessary and it is already necessary in Latin Ameirca among other places.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 02:47 AM
How many people on this site support the use of violence in attaining a goal?
This question has moralist overtones? Pacifism has as its basis a moral argument that violence is morally unjustified.

The problem with that argument is that morality is a subjective notion and has no baring on reality.

Violence is sometimes necessary and should be judged on that basis.


what about if the specific goal is as important as a revolution?

I don't understand that question?

What do you mean by important? Again this is a subjective concept. Revolution is necessary, it has nothing to do with how important we deem it or how important we see the creation of a communist society.


what are some justifications for the use of violence?

It's necessary.


personaly i support extreme pacifism. . . . .

Pacifism is a reactionary point of view which supposes that those who are being exploited and oppressed have no justification to defend themselves.

I suggest you read a book called 'Pacifism as a pathology'.


But the very principle of violence is hurting other people! That doesn't seem irrational to you?

No, it's very rational. If you need to hurt someone in order to defend yourself then that's what you should do.

You keep proposing this moralist argument without actually saying what you mean. You think it's immoral to hurt people, but why should anyone care what you think is moral?


Doesn't it strike you as being wrong to cause another living, feeling creature pain and anguish?

Not if it's necessary, no.

Can you also please define for me what "wrong" means?


Pacifism is the willingness to love and tolerate and to posses patience, faith and perseverance

Why should we "love" and "tolerate" capitalists, agents of the state or fascists? I have no time for patience, what do you mean by faith? And why should I perservere when a bullet to the head will make things happen quicker?


Violence is apathy to the condition of another person; it is hate and malice and cruelty, and it is the easiest/shoddiest way of a accomplishing a means.

Unfortunately when a revolutionary situation occurs and the police and army are shooting at us, I'd rather shoot back than sit down in the middle of the road.

Quite frankly, no matter how much you believe resisting peacefully will destroy capitalism and the state it still isn't going to happen.


How can violence be justified at all, ever?

Necessity.

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 05:15 AM

Gandhi did not alter the means of production in India. Exchanging one set of tyrants for another by peaceful means is easy - most nations do it once every 4-5 years. Changing the fundamental structure of society however, that is upending the relations of production, will require violence.
I was reffering to his use of propaganda to promote the cause. In that he was VERY succesful.

And pacifism is NOT reactionary whatsoever. Its actually a lot more radical which is why I don't support it. Not because its more radical but perhaps unrealistic in certain cases.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 04:32 PM
And pacifism is NOT reactionary whatsoever.
I've explained why it's reactionary. if you disagree, assert an argument don't just tell me your opinion.

Pacifism suggests that people are not justified to defend themselves and also allows capitalism and the state to use violence to suppress and oppress the working class.

How is that not reactionary?

[Zero]

Think of it this way. In the Slave - Master relationship, who was preaching cooperation and peacefulness? Does that make them right?

Is it very much different of a situation now?

[CCCPneubauten]

This brings us to two leaders of the Civil Rights movement; King Jr. and Malcolm X. One used peaceful means, the other used 'any means'. THe goals of King have, for the most part, been accomplished. Whilst the goals of Malcolm, for the most part, haven't.

Interesting point brought up by a teacher of mine.

Any comments on it?

[Zero]

Yeah, ask her if she has any comments about the wealth disparity between white men, black men, white women, and black women. In a recent lecture on employment my poli sci teacher put up statistics that on average Black women can recieve nearly 20k a year less doing the same job that White women do, in generally lower quality conditions.

MLKJr. had an awesome message. He rallied millions of blacks and whites alike to the cause of equal Civil Liberties, and got quite a lot of legislature passed in the Senate and House. While his enduring image has given more power to minority groups in this country, they are still the minority. They are still looked over, and given equal blocks of ignorance.

MLKJr. made the same mistake that the Indonesian Communist Party made. They tried to work within an inherently racist, sexist, and biased system to achieve a "radical" goal of equality and social justice for all based on birth, rather then social status or race.

To change a society you must change the society. And to change the society you must first destroy the society.

[YSR]

Plus, MLK was an explicit liberal. I mean, for chrissakes, his group was called the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Not a lot of room for us folks there, eh?

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 25 2006, 02:03 AM
Plus, MLK was an explicit liberal. I mean, for chrissakes, his group was called the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Not a lot of room for us folks there, eh?
Thats correct, MLK was, politically, just a brave liberal. He wanted equality of all humans and an end to racism in a capitalist system. Malcolm X knew this to be unattainable and that to end inequallity and racism, one must first abollish capitalism.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 05:35 PM
THe goals of King have, for the most part, been accomplished.
Not really. I don't think we're much closer to equality today than we were during King's era, its just that the forms racism takes have changed. What we have now is de facto segregation which, in many ways, is worse than outright racism for precisely this reason. People think the goals of that movement have been accomplished and so its left in the past, when really inequality is just as bad today.


Interesting point brought up by a teacher of mine.

Any comments on it?

Yes. Your teacher is wrong, and besides, MLK wouldn't have been shit without Malcolm and other black radicals anyway. It was the threat of massive violence by the oppressed black populace (see: race riots) that scared the government into action.

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+May 24 2006, 10:46 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ May 24 2006, 10:46 AM)
[email protected] 24 2006, 04:32 PM
And pacifism is NOT reactionary whatsoever.
I've explained why it's reactionary. if you disagree, assert an argument don't just tell me your opinion.

Pacifism suggests that people are not justified to defend themselves and also allows capitalism and the state to use violence to suppress and oppress the working class.

How is that not reactionary? [/b]

The way you worded it of course makes it sound reactionary. But then, from a pacifist perspective, and a neutral pov as well, violence is the tool of the state and is best not used. There is nothing reactionary about being non violent.

Whether pacifism is the best tactic though is, of course, debatable.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 12:09 AM
The way you worded it of course makes it sound reactionary.


Yes, the words I used make pacifism "sound reactionary" because I explained, using words, why it was...


But then, from a pacifist perspective, and a neutral pov as well, violence is the tool of the state...

Of course it is used by the state and that is precisely way defending ourselves, with violence if necessary is justified.


...and is best not used.

You haven't explained why?


There is nothing reactionary about being non violent.

So you keep saying, but I've yet to hear any kind of argument as to why it's not?


Whether pacifism is the best tactic though is, of course, debatable.

And the conclusion of that debate is that it isn't.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 12:35 AM
This brings us to two leaders of the Civil Rights movement; King Jr. and Malcolm X. One used peaceful means, the other used 'any means'. THe goals of King have, for the most part, been accomplished. Whilst the goals of Malcolm, for the most part, haven't.

Interesting point brought up by a teacher of mine.

Any comments on it?
What people seem to not understand in this argument is that there is a difference between achieving concessions or reforms through pacifism and using pacifism to fundamentally change the structure and nature of society.

[FinnMacCool]

Don't be salty with me TAT. I don't like debating with people who act like pricks.



Yes, the words I used make pacifism "sound reactionary" because I explained, using words, why it was...
Or rather, you distorted it using only one perspective.


Of course it is used by the state and that is precisely way defending ourselves, with violence if necessary is justified.
Couldn't agree more.


You haven't explained why?
Because from the perspective of a pacifist, violence is always best not used because everyone is a human being that deserves a chance. I cannot provide very much better answer then that because I'm not a pacifist. Ask a pacifist.


So you keep saying, but I've yet to hear any kind of argument as to why it's not?
I think I just did. Because violence takes a way human life, it is never a justifed reaction.


And the conclusion of that debate is that it isn't
Thats not what we're debating.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 06:08 PM

Yes, the words I used make pacifism "sound reactionary" because I explained, using words, why it was...
Or rather, you distorted it using only one perspective.

I have explained why it is reactionary and your refutation consisted of reasserting your opinion that it wasn't. Unfortunately in debate saying something over and over again does not make it true.



You haven't explained why?
Because from the perspective of a pacifist, violence is always best not used because everyone is a human being that deserves a chance.

Firstly that's not true. Every human being does not deserve a "chance". If for example, fascists, capitalists and state agents were given a "chance" then our revolution would be well and truely fucked.


I cannot provide very much better answer then that because I'm not a pacifist. Ask a pacifist.

So why are you defending this position?


I think I just did. Because violence takes a way human life, it is never a justifed reaction.

But I've already justified it? It's sometimes necessary. Why is that not a justifiable reason?



And the conclusion of that debate is that it isn't
Thats not what we're debating.

Well yes, essentially that's exactly what we're debating.

[The Feral Underclass]

I await with bated breath, your reply.

[rouchambeau]

Both should be utilized whenever neccesary. It really depends on the situation. Pacifiscim I think is better for propaganda though. Just look at Gandhi. But I think violence is neccesary for defense

What pacifists who support the "pacifism" of Gandhi don't understand is that Gandhi didn't win by appealing to the better nature of the British, but rather appealed to their need to resolve a potentially violent situation. Gandhi was nothing without the threat of the violent mob.

[YSR]

As a side note, anyone know anything about the end of MLK's life? I remember hearing that he started supporting more radical ideas right before he was killed.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:48 PM
How many people on this site support the use of violence in attaining a goal? what about if the specific goal is as important as a revolution? what are some justifications for the use of violence? personaly i support extreme pacifism. . . . .
I support the use of violence in attaining a goal when it is most effective and more reasonable to achieve success. Nonviolence I support strategically, in certain situation - it can be very useful and is a great tactic, but only under the right conditions.

You say you support extreme pacifism, then what would you do in this situation: A crazy bastard breaks in to where you are and is going to torture and kill a newborn baby in a crib near you. Do you try to stop him? The only effective means by which of stopping him is violence. Do you reject violence in this situation?

It can be applied like that on a larger scale. Inactions are, in and of themselves, actions (nonviolence isn't inactive always, but when violence is the only way to reduce suffering most, it is). Why should we take abuse and violent actions against ourselves, rather than defend ourselves?

Pacifism is irresponsible. It allows a refusal to use violence for neccissary means, and the inaction in regards to using violence can cause more suffering that were you to use violence (works on the example above I gave, and on a societal scale). Its irrational because of this. I like the following things Malcolm X had to say regarding what we are talking about:

"Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery."

"Concerning nonviolence, it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks."

I was once a pacifist, so I understand where pacifists come from with their ideology. But it is so incredibly idealistic to the point of irrationality. It is counter-productive. Working towards the change we wish to see, we must be open to different options, and opt on the side of the ones that will cause least suffering for the oppressed (and usually, violence stopping an oppressive force will cause less suffering than "turn the other cheek.")

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 8 2006, 12:54 AM
As a side note, anyone know anything about the end of MLK's life? I remember hearing that he started supporting more radical ideas right before he was killed.
I know he was organizing a "Poor Persons March" on Washington.

He spoke against militarism and imperialism. He didn't favor Marxism much because it "left no room for spirituality," but he definately found capitalism unsatisfactory and believed that we should create a society based off the common need rather that personal profit. You could say he was a socialist of sorts, or at least, he supported socialistic lines of thinking (he was definately "radical" by society's standards)

[FinnMacCool]

I have explained why it is reactionary and your refutation consisted of reasserting your opinion that it wasn't. Unfortunately in debate saying something over and over again does not make it true.

Unfortunately for you, your opinion that its reactionary doesn't make logical sense.



Firstly that's not true. Every human being does not deserve a "chance". If for example, fascists, capitalists and state agents were given a "chance" then our revolution would be well and truely fucked.

Okay but I'm not a pacifist.


So why are you defending this position?
Because I hate people like you who seek to demonize others and divide the left with accusations of fascism.


But I've already justified it? It's sometimes necessary. Why is that not a justifiable reason?
I'm not saying it isn't.



Well yes, essentially that's exactly what we're debating
No its not. We're debating whether pacifism is reactionary or not.

You know what I think is reactionary? Throwing peoples threads into the trash and giving no warning or explanation or even bothering to report this. I also think its reactionary to wave your long arm of sectarianism with glee.

You may have interperted by delay as a sign of victory. Really though, there isn't any point in debating you. However, your responses here don't get you off the hook in my book. You can attempt to divert attention to the real issue I brought up with you but I'm not going to let you forget it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 04:33 PM

I have explained why it is reactionary and your refutation consisted of reasserting your opinion that it wasn't. Unfortunately in debate saying something over and over again does not make it true.

Unfortunately for you, your opinion that its reactionary doesn't make logical sense.
Would you care to hazard a reason why...?




Firstly that's not true. Every human being does not deserve a "chance". If for example, fascists, capitalists and state agents were given a "chance" then our revolution would be well and truely fucked.

Okay but I'm not a pacifist.

Good.




So why are you defending this position?
Because I hate people like you who seek to demonize others and divide the left

Who have I attempted to demonise? And for your information, the left is already divided.


with accusations of fascism.

Who have I called a fascist?




But I've already justified it? It's sometimes necessary. Why is that not a justifiable reason?
I'm not saying it isn't.

Huh?

You said: "I think I just did. Because violence takes a way human life, it is never a justifed reaction"

So you do think it's a justified reaction or you don't?




Well yes, essentially that's exactly what we're debating
No its not. We're debating whether pacifism is reactionary or not.

Which amounts to whether or not it's the best tactic to use, surely...?


You know what I think is reactionary? Throwing peoples threads into the trash and giving no warning or explanation or even bothering to report this.

Then you are seriously deluded.


I also think its reactionary to wave your long arm of sectarianism with glee.

How is that reactionary?


You can attempt to divert attention to the real issue I brought up with you but I'm not going to let you forget it.

Oh yes of course. You thinking I'm not an anarchist is the "real issue"... :blink:

[Palmares]

Pacifism is a reformist tactic, and is only really applicable to the first world (not to mention that change really has to happen here, since this is where the most concentrated political power is), or in situations where the first world cares (hence why it is mosty applicable to themselves).

Pacifism is predicated on both the (positive) attention of institutions such as the media, and that then the projected audience cares enough about the issue and/or the people involved in the issue. So if violence is used against pacifists, someone cars about the fact they are being hurt.

In the first world certainly their constituents care in a vague way about the welfare of their fellow people, and hence so do the media - that then enables some possible effectiveness in pacifism as a strategy.

Third world nations experience things very differently, as due to the extreme repression present there (as opposed to the liberal "freedom" in the west), so then they get brutally attacked by the military, the media is likely to not care (especially if it's a Western media outlet), or if it does get media, it will be negative, or simply, those in the West won't care - in the sense that, generally people in the West don't care what's happening overseas since its not directly affecting them, whereas if the same thing was happening in their own country, it would be.

So then the pacifists in the third world would simply be slaughtered.

This is why violence is a more popualr tactic in the third world - it is simply more effective.

Pacifism and violence each have their usefulness in political matters, and in promoting revolution and social change, each must be used to their best strategic ability according to the given situation.

Basically, pacifism is a tactic, not a way of life...

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 07:36 AM
This brings us to two leaders of the Civil Rights movement; King Jr. and Malcolm X. One used peaceful means, the other used 'any means'. THe goals of King have, for the most part, been accomplished. Whilst the goals of Malcolm, for the most part, haven't.

Interesting point brought up by a teacher of mine.

Any comments on it?
I think what your teacher may well have ignored is the complex dialectic these two figures created.

It's just like with Gandhi: pacifism was effective only in the situation where the threat of violence was present.

[FinnMacCool]

Would you care to hazard a reason why...?

Because being "reactionary" means being resistant to change. Pacifists want change, they just adhere to different tactics.

"But they allow violence to permit blah blah blah" yeah I know but that doesn't make it reactionary. If they aren't trying to be conservative, then they aren't reacitonary.


Who have I attempted to demonise? And for your information, the left is already divided.
Pacifists. I think that calling a pacifist a reactionary is a pretty agressive attack. And yeah the left is divided. So you want to divide it up even more?


Huh?

You said: "I think I just did. Because violence takes a way human life, it is never a justifed reaction"

So you do think it's a justified reaction or you don't?

I was speaking from the POV of a pacifist.


Who have I called a fascist?

Noone, of course. But that is a logical progression from being a "reactionary" to a "fascist". Indeed, calling someone a reactionary implies a far right leaning.


Which amounts to whether or not it's the best tactic to use, surely...?
NO because I agree with you. I just don't agree that being a pacifist makes someone reactionary.


Then you are seriously deluded.

No, you just have a warped idea of what anarchism really is.


How is that reactionary?
Elitism is reactionary, isn't it?


Oh yes of course. You thinking I'm not an anarchist is the "real issue"...
Its one which you have been avoiding.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 09:05 PM

Would you care to hazard a reason why...?

Because being "reactionary" means being resistant to change. Pacifists want change, they just adhere to different tactics.
But those tactics can never ever create change and in fact allow the state to oppress the working class. It also gives the state an opportunity to implement further repression.

How is that not reactionary?


"But they allow violence to permit blah blah blah" yeah I know but that doesn't make it reactionary. If they aren't trying to be conservative, then they aren't reacitonary.

Your definition of the term reactionary is a little confused. I'm aware of what it says at dictionary.com, but in the realm of political philosophy being a reactionary is far more complex than a simple dictionary definition.



Who have I attempted to demonise? And for your information, the left is already divided.
Pacifists. I think that calling a pacifist a reactionary is a pretty agressive attack.

Perhaps, but it's the truth.


And yeah the left is divided. So you want to divide it up even more?

I flattered that you think I have the individual power to atomise the revolutionary left further than it already is. Unfortunately there have been people before me with these opinions so the credit lays with them.



Who have I called a fascist?

Noone, of course. But that is a logical progression from being a "reactionary" to a "fascist". Indeed, calling someone a reactionary implies a far right leaning.

Not necessarily.





Then you are seriously deluded.

No, you just have a warped idea of what anarchism really is.

Are you a member of any political organisation? I'm fairly seated on the anarchist scene in the UK and I have had no problems with understanding and practicing anarchism.



How is that reactionary?
Elitism is reactionary, isn't it?

That makes no sense and doesn't follow on from what you said. How is me bading my sectarianism with glee elist?



Oh yes of course. You thinking I'm not an anarchist is the "real issue"...
Its one which you have been avoiding.

If you honestly think I am going to waste my time justifying my beliefs against the fact that I trashed your silly thread then you are very mistaken.

[rouchambeau]

As a side note, anyone know anything about the end of MLK's life? I remember hearing that he started supporting more radical ideas right before he was killed.

Yeah. He started getting into classism. If I remember correctly, he was killed organizing garbage workers.

[Red Polak]

I used to be a pacifist and believed that fascism could be defeated by simply talking people out of it perhaps over a pint.

Recently though I've heard and seen some stuff which has convinced me otherwise. Of course I wouldn't randomly attack a fascist in the street (he'd probably kill me) but I can't say that I'd call off a "roughing up" by fellow lefties especially remembering the recent attack on that Polish comrade.

During revolution I believe that violence is an unavoidable necessity.


Found the posts about Ghandi in this thread pretty interesting - definitely learned some stuff there ;)

[FinnMacCool]

But those tactics can never ever create change and in fact allow the state to oppress the working class. It also gives the state an opportunity to implement further repression.

How is that not reactionary?

I'll repeat:

Since pacifists want change, they aren't reactionary. Their tactics are actually quite radical since they aren't accepted by many people. Pacifism is actually a case where people can be too radical.


Your definition of the term reactionary is a little confused. I'm aware of what it says at dictionary.com, but in the realm of political philosophy being a reactionary is far more complex than a simple dictionary definition.
As it is understood, being reactionary means adhering to conservative principles. So basically your accusing pacifists of being conservative because they refuse to use violence. Perhaps "counter productive" would be a better word.


I flattered that you think I have the individual power to atomise the revolutionary left further than it already is. Unfortunately there have been people before me with these opinions so the credit lays with them.

Why don't I just exploit workers too? After all, people have done it before me. Just because someone has done something before you doesn't mean you should validate it by repeating bullshit over again.


Not necessarily.
Okay fine. Its just sematics anyways.


Are you a member of any political organisation? I'm fairly seated on the anarchist scene in the UK and I have had no problems with understanding and practicing anarchism.

Wow good for you. Show your credentials first before not telling me how censorship is not reactionary.


That makes no sense and doesn't follow on from what you said. How is me bading my sectarianism with glee elist?
Because sectarianism is exclusionary meant to divide rather then unite.


If you honestly think I am going to waste my time justifying my beliefs against the fact that I trashed your silly thread then you are very mistaken.
So you don't believe mods and other leaders should have some accountability?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 11:08 PM

But those tactics can never ever create change and in fact allow the state to oppress the working class. It also gives the state an opportunity to implement further repression.

How is that not reactionary?

I'll repeat:

Since pacifists want change, they aren't reactionary.
But what they do doesn't creat change and in fact impedes it, and is therefore reactionary.

Repetition isn't an argument. I'm trying to advance this debate to some sort of conclusion, please have the decency to at least try and co-operate.

The state has guns and they are not afraid to use them. By resisting non-violently you are effectively giving up struggle that stops change from happening, and in many instances turns back the clock on progression already made; simply because the state now has the reason and the opportunity to repress political movements.


Their tactics are actually quite radical since they aren't accepted by many people. Pacifism is actually a case where people can be too radical.

Radicalism requires doing what is necessary. That's radical.



Your definition of the term reactionary is a little confused. I'm aware of what it says at dictionary.com, but in the realm of political philosophy being a reactionary is far more complex than a simple dictionary definition.
As it is understood, being reactionary means adhering to conservative principles. So basically your accusing pacifists of being conservative because they refuse to use violence. Perhaps "counter productive" would be a better word.

Repetition again!

You have not addressed my points.



I flattered that you think I have the individual power to atomise the revolutionary left further than it already is. Unfortunately there have been people before me with these opinions so the credit lies with them.

Why don't I just exploit workers too? After all, people have done it before me. Just because someone has done something before you doesn't mean you should validate it by repeating bullshit over again.

That's not quite what I meant.

The point I am making is that the revolutionary left is as divided as it should be and is so because of reasons that are nothing to do with me personally.



Not necessarily.
Okay fine. Its just sematics anyways.

Yes, that's precisely what it is and it's important if you are going to understand what reactionary is.



Are you a member of any political organisation? I'm fairly seated on the anarchist scene in the UK and I have had no problems with understanding and practicing anarchism.

Wow good for you. Show your credentials first before not telling me how censorship is not reactionary.

:lol:

Censored? You really are a funny little fellow.



That makes no sense and doesn't follow on from what you said. How is me bading my sectarianism with glee elist?
Because sectarianism is exclusionary meant to divide rather then unite.

And how is that elitist?

At the Stirling camp during the G8 the large camp wide meetings were split, essentially, due to tactics on how to resist the police had the invaded the camp site. This division is irreconcilable and in fact causes more problems than it does good.

I would argue strongly that if confrontational and class struggle anarchism is ever going to achieve its objectives, splitting with pacifists is the first step. Working together can work until a point, but ultimately it will end in tears. That's from personal experience.



If you honestly think I am going to waste my time justifying my beliefs against the fact that I trashed your silly thread then you are very mistaken.
So you don't believe mods and other leaders should have some accountability?

I'm not a leader!

And you were given an explanation on why the thread was trashed. It's unfortunate that you do not agree with that explanation. If you care to take the issue up with an admin then that is up to you.

[FinnMacCool]

But what they do doesn't creat change and in fact impedes it, and is therefore reactionary.

That doesn't make it reactionary. You can repeat this over and over again but its just simply not true.


Radicalism requires doing what is necessary. That's radical.
Whatever radicalism requires doesn't make something radical. Just because conservatives use violence doesn't make them radical. A radical is a person who wants to reshape society. By using an entirely different approach then others before have used, pacifists are infact more radical then most.


Repetition again!

You have not addressed my points.
There is nothing to addresss. Your basically saying, "Well the definition says this and everyone basically understands it as this but I don't think its this." Maybe I am repeating myself but there is little I can do against your joke of an argument.


That's not quite what I meant.

The point I am making is that the revolutionary left is as divided as it should be and is so because of reasons that are nothing to do with me personally.And you feel like you must validate these divisions with more sectarian nonesense? Why?


Censored? You really are a funny little fellow.
I'm glad you can't find a better response. WEll if you don't like the word censorship, how about gatekeeping?


And how is that elitist?

Because you are putting yourself above others. Its not only elitist but very counter productive.

Considering the very few amount of pacifists, I don't really see what the point of seperating from them does. They can seperate from us if they want but some of the most influential people have been pacifists, and I'm not just talking about gandhi either.


I'm not a leader!

And you were given an explanation on why the thread was trashed. It's unfortunate that you do not agree with that explanation. If you care to take the issue up with an admin then that is up to you.
I'm not satisifed with just an explanation. I want to post your reason on my thread and defend yourself. I hate dealing with these things under the cover so you can just go ahead and do something like that agian the next time it pleases you.

[Alexandria]

But the very principle of violence is hurting other people! That doesn't seem irrational to you? Doesn't it strike you as being wrong to cause another living, feeling creature pain and anguish? Pacifism is the willingness to love and tolerate and to posses patience, faith and perseverance; it is the ultimate form of dedication to cause. Violence is apathy to the condition of another person; it is hate and malice and cruelty, and it is the easiest/shoddiest way of a accomplishing a means. How can violence be justified at all, ever?


Even the threat of violence is enough. If people know that you are serious, and are willing to hurt them to get your way, their whole attitute changes.

For the most part the left has failed miserably by clinging to the "Ghandi" approch, trying to appeal to neohick's better nature. The flag wavn' bible beleiving Rush Limbaugh ditto heads only understand one thing - something that is even more ruthless than they are.

i'm lucky I'm 6' tall, 6'2"-6'6" in heels, and can be downright intimidating when I'm yelling at some gawd fearing flag waving neohick threatinging to rip his/her face to shreads with my nails.

When trying to convice people who actually have money to support a more equitable distribution of wealh I beleive a much more diplomatic approch should be taken, but the adversaries should be made aware that we have no problem playing the "do as we ask or we will burn it all down and you will lose everything" card if we have too.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 08:55 PM

But what they do doesn't creat change and in fact impedes it, and is therefore reactionary.

That doesn't make it reactionary.
But it does, that's the point. Now, if you cannot break down my argument why and address each point with a valid refutation, apart from "the dictionary says differently" then I and anyone else who reads this thread should assume you have no idea what you're talking about.


You can repeat this over and over again but its just simply not true.

I shall repeat it one more time, and perhaps this time you will be able to come up with someone of intellectual value.

Reactionary means anti-progression. This is the loose common definition of the word. As pacifism impedes progression, by definition it's reactionary.



Radicalism requires doing what is necessary. That's radical.
Just because conservatives use violence doesn't make them radical.

Being radical isn't reserved solely for the revolutionary left I'm afraid.


A radical is a person who wants to reshape society.

Conservatives want to reshape society. The neo-conservative agenda means to create the "New World Order" of American democracy around the world.


By using an entirely different approach then others before have used, pacifists are in fact more radical then most.

You have a very naive, albeit noble sense of the world but in fact the reality is somewhat different.

Pacifism has been used many times and has achieved only concession. Pacifism can never destroy the fabric of society and create a communist/anarchist society because the state won't let you, ever without killing you first.

By employing pacifist tactics in that instance you are giving the state the opportunity to role in with their tanks and blow the shit out of you and send you on you way.



Repetition again!

You have not addressed my points.
Maybe I am repeating myself but there is little I can do against your joke of an argument.

So are you claiming that the only valid definition of reactionary is the dictionary definition?



That's not quite what I meant.

The point I am making is that the revolutionary left is as divided as it should be and is so because of reasons that are nothing to do with me personally.And you feel like you must validate these divisions with more sectarian nonesense? Why?

No, that's not what I'm saying. If you pay attention a little better...

The left is irreconcilably divided and therefore there is nothing I can do as an individually that will make it anymore so.

Do you understand?



Censored? You really are a funny little fellow.
I'm glad you can't find a better response. WEll if you don't like the word censorship, how about gatekeeping?

No no, you're more than welcome to call it censorship.


I'm not satisifed with just an explanation. I want to post your reason on my thread and defend yourself. I hate dealing with these things under the cover so you can just go ahead and do something like that agian the next time it pleases you.

You don't have to be satisfied, like I said you can contact an admin and discuss it with them.

[An archist]

As an anarchist I support pacifism: pure anarchists will always be pacifists since violence is allways oppression.
But off course in self-defence it's perfectly acceptable. And certainly in antifascist actions, fascists are allways a threat.

The problem with violence is that it might cause people to neglect their ideals: to fight for their ideals, but not live up to them, saying: first we need to 'win the war' then we'll talk, but when 'the war is won', they take power, because they are used to it.

[An archist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 02:32 AM

When trying to convice people who actually have money to support a more equitable distribution of wealh I beleive a much more diplomatic approch should be taken, but the adversaries should be made aware that we have no problem playing the "do as we ask or we will burn it all down and you will lose everything" card if we have too.
See, that's exaclty the problem: you won't change the system, you'll just change the leaders.

[FinnMacCool]

But it does, that's the point. Now, if you cannot break down my argument why and address each point with a valid refutation, apart from "the dictionary says differently" then I and anyone else who reads this thread should assume you have no idea what you're talking about.


There is nothing to rebut. Trying to respond to an illogical argument will reproduce more illogical arguments and thats just a waste of my time. You are unable to prove that pacifism is recationary because you apparently have your own special definition for reactionary. But your definition doesn't apply here.


I shall repeat it one more time, and perhaps this time you will be able to come up with someone of intellectual value.

Reactionary means anti-progression. This is the loose common definition of the word. As pacifism impedes progression, by definition it's reactionary.
Except when you call someone a "reactionary" you are reffering to an idealogy. So what you're saying doesn't make sense. Pacifists want change so therefore they aren't reactionary. Counter-productive, as I 've said before, is probably a more accurate description. Calling someone "reactionary" implies that they are right wing and this, of course, is a very general term to place upon a pacifist, not to mention highly inaccurate


Being radical isn't reserved solely for the revolutionary left I'm afraid.

Oh please let us not get into semantics with something else! Replace 'radical' with a different term if you want. I'm sure your intelligent enough to understand what I mean.


Conservatives want to reshape society. The neo-conservative agenda means to create the "New World Order" of American democracy around the world.
Actually, by its very definition, conservatives want to keep things the same. Or else, fall back to previous times. However this is just semantics over again so lets not get into that.


You have a very naive, albeit noble sense of the world but in fact the reality is somewhat different.

Pacifism has been used many times and has achieved only concession. Pacifism can never destroy the fabric of society and create a communist/anarchist society because the state won't let you, ever without killing you first.

By employing pacifist tactics in that instance you are giving the state the opportunity to role in with their tanks and blow the shit out of you and send you on you way.

How the hell am I naive? I'm not a fucking pacifist, as I've said about a thousand fucking times before but you still feel the need to try and pick a fight with me on that for some reason.

In any case, just because pacifists are naive doesn't make them any less radical. For some, radicalism implies naivity. In my opinion, this is not the case but that can be implied for pacifists definatly.


So are you claiming that the only valid definition of reactionary is the dictionary definition?
Are you claiming that you are free to make up definitions for words as you see fit? When one talks about the basic understanding of the word 'reactionary' it implies right wingness. Your definition, whatever the hell it is, does not fit this general picture so therefore calling pacifists reactionary is both confusing and wrong.


No, that's not what I'm saying. If you pay attention a little better...

The left is irreconcilably divided and therefore there is nothing I can do as an individually that will make it anymore so.

Do you understand?

I understand, but yet you still feel the need to validate these divisions. Its like me being a Yankee Fan and saying "Well fuck it the Boston Red Soxs are always going to be against us so fuck it I'll just beat the shit out of them right now."


You don't have to be satisfied, like I said you can contact an admin and discuss it with them.
Like I said, I don't want this swept under the rug. It is my understanding that this gatekeeping bullshit has been going on for quite some time now and I think it might do this community a big favor for these problems to be addressed.

Something in particular which has interested me is how you remarked that you thought the Fight thread was a way for kids to boast about their masculanity. I would like to know how the Sex thread is any different.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by An [email protected] 13 2006, 06:06 AM
As an anarchist I support pacifism: pure anarchists will always be pacifists since violence is allways oppression.
But off course in self-defence it's perfectly acceptable. And certainly in antifascist actions, fascists are allways a threat.

The problem with violence is that it might cause people to neglect their ideals: to fight for their ideals, but not live up to them, saying: first we need to 'win the war' then we'll talk, but when 'the war is won', they take power, because they are used to it.
I reccommend you read the rest of the thread.

But in a nutshell, that is your interpretation, but as an anarchist myself, I do not see it that way. Rather, non-violence, as a way of life, as opposed to a tactic to be used in sitations of benefit, is tantamount to legitimising the status quo - by not directly challenging it and changing it.

And as part of the dynamic of anarchism, it is multi-faceted in its revolutionary methodology, and hence, the insurrectionary part is not the only part - the social revolution is the key to shaping the way we think, and act.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by violencia.Proletariat+--> (violencia.Proletariat)Violence is a necessity in revolutions. Pacifism is a very crazy idea, the modern pedestal it's placed on disguises it's irrational ideas.[/b] It is not inherently irrational. But many of its adherents are.


Originally posted by OkaCrisis+--> (OkaCrisis) Most of us here would argue that violent revolution is self defense.[/b] Indead.

(I have to say that I basically agree with all of Cthenthar's first post.)

I think that reactionary is about wanting to go back to a "better" age. And even if reactionary does mean anti-progression, pacifists are not reactionary; they do not want to go back to a "better" age and they are not anti-progression. Counter Productive might be the better term, as FinnMacCool suggested.


An [email protected]
As an anarchist I support pacifism: pure anarchists will always be pacifists since violence is allways oppression.
But off course in self-defence it's perfectly acceptable. And certainly in antifascist actions, fascists are allways a threat.

The problem with violence is that it might cause people to neglect their ideals: to fight for their ideals, but not live up to them, saying: first we need to 'win the war' then we'll talk, but when 'the war is won', they take power, because they are used to it.
Most of us here would argue that violent revolution is self defence. But I agree with the sentiment in the second part of your post. We do not want rulers, we do not want people with power (anybody). Violence is a form of power.


Cthenthar
Rather, non-violence, as a way of life, as opposed to a tactic to be used in sitations of benefit, is tantamount to legitimising the status quo - by not directly challenging it and changing it.I disagree. It depends on how it is used. If it is simply living in society and not opposing it then yes. But if it is living outside of and opposing (not co-operating with) the system, then even if it is non-violent then it is still not legitimising the status quo. Not paying taxes, not voting are both non-violence. Both oppose the system.
(And I agree with the second part.)

[Palmares]

The point is, it cannot be revolutionary without, at least, the possibility of insurrectionary techniques. Operating non-violently outside or without supporting the current system of oppression, cannot, and will not (well, extremely unlikely) change anything, and hence cannot be accepted as anymore than lifestylist, if not liberal. That isn't to say that these techniques do not have teir place within radical movements, but the fact is, to be truly effective, they must work in conjunction with insurrectionary elements.

[apathy maybe]

But I never said that it was revolutionary. I agree that pacifism is not revolutionary.

And I think that it has the possibility of changing things. Imagine if they had a war and nobody came (or went as the case maybe).

And living outside the system is "lifesylist", but calling it liberal is silly. Liberalism (of the sort I imagine you are talking about), supports the state, supports paying taxes. Living outside the system is not liberal.

But yes, we should use it as one part of the multi-faceted whole.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 04:08 AM

But it does, that's the point. Now, if you cannot break down my argument why and address each point with a valid refutation, apart from "the dictionary says differently" then I and anyone else who reads this thread should assume you have no idea what you're talking about.


There is nothing to rebut.
Fine, so we should all then assume you have no idea what you're talking about.


Trying to respond to an illogical argument will reproduce more illogical arguments and thats just a waste of my time.

I'd be interested to see you attempt to demonstrate that my argument is illogical.


You are unable to prove that pacifism is recationary because you apparently have your own special definition for reactionary.

No, I use the word reactionary just like most people on the revolutionary left do. Perhaps it's a question of understanding political theory more in depth than you do. For that I can forgive you.


But your definition doesn't apply here.

So you keep saying.



I shall repeat it one more time, and perhaps this time you will be able to come up with someone of intellectual value.

Reactionary means anti-progression. This is the loose common definition of the word. As pacifism impedes progression, by definition it's reactionary.
Except when you call someone a "reactionary" you are reffering to an idealogy. So what you're saying doesn't make sense.

The word reactionary is also used to describe actions. Are you telling me that the war in Iraq wasn't reactionary?


Pacifists want change so therefore they aren't reactionary.

We don't live in the world of peoples minds though. What people want is not how we judge reality.

Judging what is and what is not reactionary requires understanding what these people do not what they think.

I'm sure pacifists don't believe themselves reactionary, but there actions are anti-progressive, thus reactionary.

[Please post an intellectual argument to refute these direct points]


Counter-productive, as I 've said before, is probably a more accurate description. Calling someone "reactionary" implies that they are right wing and this, of course, is a very general term to place upon a pacifist, not to mention highly inaccurate

It may solely imply "right wingness" to someone with a basic grasp of political theory, but to the rest of us it can also mean other things.



Conservatives want to reshape society. The neo-conservative agenda means to create the "New World Order" of American democracy around the world.
Actually, by its very definition, conservatives want to keep things the same. Or else, fall back to previous times.

It's very important for you to grasp the fact that viewing the world based on dictionary definitions is not an accurate way to understand the world.



So are you claiming that the only valid definition of reactionary is the dictionary definition?
Are you claiming that you are free to make up definitions for words as you see fit?

I haven't made up the definition of the word reactionary.


When one talks about the basic understanding of the word 'reactionary' it implies right wingness. Your definition, whatever the hell it is, does not fit this general picture so therefore calling pacifists reactionary is both confusing and wrong.

It's confusing and wrong, to you.

I'm sure it doesn't "fit this general picture" of your myopic world view, but your narrow minded insight in the world of political theory needs to be challenged if you are to develop your understanding.


I understand, but yet you still feel the need to validate these divisions.

But the divisions are valid.


Its like me being a Yankee Fan and saying "Well fuck it the Boston Red Soxs are always going to be against us so fuck it I'll just beat the shit out of them right now."

It's not like at all.

[An archist]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 13 2006, 06:31 AM
But I never said that it was revolutionary. I agree that pacifism is not revolutionary.

Pacifism can be perfectly revolutionary, you just need enough people.
Just imagine: about 50 percent of the working population simply not going to work anymore. That's their full right in a democracy. If they don't work, then they can't pay taxes, perfectly normal too. Now, if some people start an 'anarchist bank' or something like that and everyone gets their money transferred to those accounts. Corporationss wouldn't have enough money for investments nor enough workers, the state wouldn't have enough money aaand...

bye-bye capitalism and bye-bye government.

Off course, this is an ideal situation, but something like this could be possible.


EDIT:Now how is that reactionary Mr. anarchist tension?

[bcbm]

bye-bye capitalism and bye-bye government.

Off course, this is an ideal situation, but something like this could be possible.

Only if they said "Well, fuck, 50% of the workers just up and quit. We'd better just hand over power now." Forgive me if I think that is unlikely. More likely, they would declare martial law, send out the police and the army and set about crushing anything you were trying to set up. In this situation, perhaps you can see how letting them bust down the doors and arrest (or just kill) the lot of you would be aiding the forces of reaction?

[An archist]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 13 2006, 10:42 AM

bye-bye capitalism and bye-bye government.

Off course, this is an ideal situation, but something like this could be possible.

Only if they said "Well, fuck, 50% of the workers just up and quit. We'd better just hand over power now." Forgive me if I think that is unlikely. More likely, they would declare martial law, send out the police and the army and set about crushing anything you were trying to set up. In this situation, perhaps you can see how letting them bust down the doors and arrest (or just kill) the lot of you would be aiding the forces of reaction?
See: they can't really do anything in that particular situation since you're not breaking the law in any way!
If they do declare martial law and/or send the forces of disorder, well then they'd be breaking the law wich would cause and justify a revolt, even by the people who don't necesarily agree with you. Of (with one or 2 ff's?) course you would use violence in that case, they've attacked you!

[bcbm]

See: they can't really do anything in that particular situation since you're not breaking the law in any way!

Uh, when has the law ever gotten in the way of the state?


If they do declare martial law and/or send the forces of disorder, well then they'd be breaking the law wich would cause and justify a revolt, even by the people who don't necesarily agree with you.

The government can declare martial law pretty much as it sees fit, so I don't see how they'd be breaking anything, nor would they care. I think your expectations are a bit optimistic for what would happen next.


Of (with one or 2 ff's?) course you would use violence in that case, they've attacked you!

But that isn&#39;t pacifism, which makes your "scenario" pointless. <_<

[An archist]

Hey, I&#39;m not saying pacifism is the best thing there is, I&#39;m just saying it&#39;s a tactic wich will get you the support of more people. (after that you can move on to violent protest)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by An [email protected] 14 2006, 10:29 AM
Hey, I&#39;m not saying pacifism is the best thing there is, I&#39;m just saying it&#39;s a tactic wich will get you the support of more people. (after that you can move on to violent protest)
I can accept that, providing you can accept that it will never create an anarchist society.

[Tree_Hugger]

It&#39;s pretty disillusioning to read that everyone on this site advocates violence. . . now I feel kind of alone. I really liked RevLeft too, I thought everyone was so informed, involved, sophisiticated and eloquent. Whatever, maybe I thought wrong. I&#39;m kinda sorry I made this thread at all

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 08:20 PM
I thought everyone was so informed, involved, sophisiticated and eloquent. Whatever, maybe I thought wrong.
No, clearly you were correct.

[An archist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 02:20 AM
It&#39;s pretty disillusioning to read that everyone on this site advocates violence. . . now I feel kind of alone. I really liked RevLeft too, I thought everyone was so informed, involved, sophisiticated and eloquent. Whatever, maybe I thought wrong. I&#39;m kinda sorry I made this thread at all
I don&#39;t advocate violence, I hate violence, I don&#39;t like fighting at all, but in some cases it is a necesary evil, no-one will give you your full freedom, if you try to take it, they will attack you (see: Christiania, the Paris commune and so many other free zones, communes and squats) then you have no choice but to fight back. If you don&#39;t, you give in to them.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 03:20 AM
It&#39;s pretty disillusioning to read that everyone on this site advocates violence. . .
There is a difference between advocating violence and being realistic. I don&#39;t particularly go around say "violence is great lets all be violent" but I do recognise the fact that if we are serious about overthrowing capitalism and the state we are going to have to accept that violence may be necessary.


I thought everyone was so informed, involved, sophisiticated and eloquent. Whatever, maybe I thought wrong. I&#39;m kinda sorry I made this thread at all

Yes, it must feel very good to have taken the moral high ground. You must be proud of yourself.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 12:20 PM
It&#39;s pretty disillusioning to read that everyone on this site advocates violence. . . now I feel kind of alone.
please don&#39;t take this to be condescending, because for sure i don&#39;t mean it to be - but i started out pretty pacifist as well, and i think a lot of people do when they get into revolutionary politics... and after a while it became clear that pacifism was never going to lead anywhere, especially when the forces we oppose so much use violence continuously, unsparingly.

i haven&#39;t been following this thread so i&#39;m sure people have already pointed this out, along with other reasons for why violence should sometimes be used as a tactic. i hope that you continue to read and post on revleft.

[FinnMacCool]

Good job ignoring my last remarks in my last post, TAT.



The word reactionary is also used to describe actions. Are you telling me that the war in Iraq wasn&#39;t reactionary?


You can call the Iraq War reactionary because its based on conservative politics and conservative policies, which is what reactionarism is.


We don&#39;t live in the world of peoples minds though. What people want is not how we judge reality.
Its how we judge idealogy, and its clear that their idealogy is radical and since their methods releate directly to this idealogy, they aren&#39;t reactionary.


Judging what is and what is not reactionary requires understanding what these people do not what they think.

I&#39;m sure pacifists don&#39;t believe themselves reactionary, but there actions are anti-progressive, thus reactionary.
They aren&#39;t anti progressive. Being anti progressive would be supporting a conservative politician. Pacifiism doesn&#39;t mean cooperation just non violence.


[Please post an intellectual argument to refute these direct points]
I had to admit I chuckled at this little entry. NOt only was in condescendlingly disgusting but it was also quite ironic, considering you cannot clearly prove that what they do is reactionary just because you have your own special definition of the word.


It may solely imply "right wingness" to someone with a basic grasp of political theory, but to the rest of us it can also mean other things.
Whose the rest of us? You? If I, say, asked several experts on political thought whether they agreed that pacifism was reactionary, what do you think they would say?



I haven&#39;t made up the definition of the word reactionary.
And yet you claim the definition of the world reactionary is not the real definition. What is the real definition then?


It&#39;s confusing and wrong, to you.

I&#39;m sure it doesn&#39;t "fit this general picture" of your myopic world view, but your narrow minded insight in the world of political theory needs to be challenged if you are to develop your understanding.
If your challenging my understanding of political theory, then your challenging basically everyones understanding of political theory.

But the divisions are valid.
Only because people like you seem to relish them.


It&#39;s not like at all.
Sure it is. Conformism is a personal choice, just like everything else and because you conform, it makes you know better then everyone single other person who conforms to narrow minded sectarianism.

[Tree_Hugger]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15 2006, 10:22 AM

Yes, it must feel very good to have taken the moral high ground. You must be proud of yourself.
Fuck you, too. Unless you don&#39;t already know, it&#39;s really hard being isolated, confused, misunderstood and depressed, and so maybe I&#39;m being a little self righteous. But I&#39;m not &#39;taking the moral high ground&#39;, I&#39;m scared that so many people believe violence is neccessary (or maybe I&#39;m stupid and naive). Whatever. Sorry I&#39;m such an asshole

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 08:39 PM

[Please post an intellectual argument to refute these direct points]
I had to admit I chuckled at this little entry. NOt only was in condescendlingly disgusting but it was also quite ironic, considering you cannot clearly prove that what they do is reactionary just because you have your own special definition of the word.
This is going round in circles because you&#39;re a fucking idiot.

It&#39;s not my "special definition" ask anyone on this board with the understanding of political theory and they will agree with me, just like everyone else I know in the revolutionary left movement.

And my argument was intellectual. I have explained that being reactionary means anti-progressive and as pacifism impedes progression and in fact roles back any victories of progression through giving the state the opportunity to repress the movement is therefore reactionary.

Now, if you were to [intellectually] attempt to refute that, you could perhaps attack my line of argument that suggests pacifism impedes progression by demonstrating empirically that it doesn&#39;t. You could also discuss how the tactic can bring down the state which does not lead to repression. These are all intellectual arguments that would develop this debate...

However, all you have done is keep telling me that I am not using the right definition of the word reactionary...Fine&#33;

Let&#39;s drop the word reactionary then, and simply say that pacifism impedes progression and gives the state power to repress the movement?

Do you have anything to say about that?



I haven&#39;t made up the definition of the word reactionary.
And yet you claim the definition of the world reactionary is not the real definition. What is the real definition then?

Marx would use the word reactionary to specifically refer to anyone or any movement which was directly anti-working class or impedes the creation of a communist society.

I don&#39;t think that&#39;s a fair definition and the use of the word reactionary has developed now to include anything which impedes revolutionary progression.



It&#39;s confusing and wrong, to you.

I&#39;m sure it doesn&#39;t "fit this general picture" of your myopic world view, but your narrow minded insight in the world of political theory needs to be challenged if you are to develop your understanding.
If your challenging my understanding of political theory, then your challenging basically everyones understanding of political theory.

No I&#39;m not. I&#39;ve been involved in the revolutionary movement since I was 14. Not that I&#39;m bragging, merely demonstrating my experience.



But the divisions are valid.
Only because people like you seem to relish them.

Stop being so immature about it. It has nothing to do with relishing division. The division is a fact and it&#39;s an irreconcilable fact.



It&#39;s not like at all.
Sure it is. Conformism is a personal choice, just like everything else and because you conform, it makes you know better then everyone single other person who conforms to narrow minded sectarianism.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 12:00 AM
Unless you don&#39;t already know, it&#39;s really hard being isolated, confused, misunderstood and depressed
Why is it your so isolated, confused, misunderstood and depressed?


But I&#39;m not &#39;taking the moral high ground&#39;, I&#39;m scared that so many people believe violence is neccessary (or maybe I&#39;m stupid and naive).

You are being a little naive yes. As for being scared, I&#39;m not really sure what you have to be scared about.

[FinnMacCool]

Ok there&#39;s nothing more for us to debate here any longer. I&#39;m just going to sit back here and laugh at you because you don&#39;t have the guts to try and defend your statements.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 04:45 PM
Ok there&#39;s nothing more for us to debate here any longer.
No, there&#39;s allot to debate, you&#39;re just incapable of debating it.

[Tree_Hugger]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16 2006, 12:31 PM

Why is it your so isolated, confused, misunderstood and depressed?

Because no one i know understands/supports/agrees or believes in me.. . Which is why I feel very isolated and depresed all the time. (sorry if that sounded a little ridiculous or selfcentered)

I dunno, maybe my opinions will change later (I don&#39;t really even know of what I belive in anymore), but violence just kinda scares me. . .

[EwokUtopia]

Do we really even need to overthrow a system that is on a crash course anyways? Capitalism will fail with or without a revolution. Its days are numbered because it is based upon selfish and ultimately unsustainable principals like infinate economic expansion and the exploitation of an ever growing majority. It will fail, and when it does, it is up to us to prevent the crash from taking everything down with it.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+--> (The Anarchist Tension)And my argument was intellectual. I have explained that being reactionary means anti-progressive and as pacifism impedes progression and in fact roles back any victories of progression through giving the state the opportunity to repress the movement is therefore reactionary.[/b]But you have not shown howpacifism impedes progression. And I believe the burden of proof would be on you to show this, rather then on those who claim that pacifism is not anti-progression. Examples of it being progressive could include forest protests.


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+--> (The Anarchist Tension)Now, if you were to [intellectually] attempt to refute that, you could perhaps attack my line of argument that suggests pacifism impedes progression by demonstrating empirically that it doesn&#39;t. You could also discuss how the tactic can bring down the state which does not lead to repression. These are all intellectual arguments that would develop this debate...[/b]How could pacifism bring down the state? Examples have been given, one is if no body payed taxes, how would the government operate? I did not say they were good examples.


The Anarchist [email protected]
Let&#39;s drop the word reactionary then, and simply say that pacifism impedes progression and gives the state power to repress the movement?It does not impede progression, and again it is up to you to show that it does. To a certain extent it also does not even give the state the "power" to repress the "movement" (which movement anyway?). If we are talking about using pacifism to achieve short-term aims in this current society, I would argue it takes away power from (at least "democratic") governments, as they have to worry (at least a little) about public opinion.


Tree Hugger
Because no one i know understands/supports/agrees or believes in me.. . Which is why I feel very isolated and depresed all the time. (sorry if that sounded a little ridiculous or selfcentered)

I dunno, maybe my opinions will change later (I don&#39;t really even know of what I belive in anymore), but violence just kinda scares me. . .Hey, move out of the small town in to the big city&#33; Sure it would be awful, but there are plenty more people who think your way in the city. Do not feel depressed, just because you think one way, does not mean that everyone else will. But even if others do not, doesn&#39;t mean that they are correct and you are not. Being a Tree Hugger is good, but I think that if you hang out on RevLeft a bit more (and I hope you do), you&#39;ll see that it takes a lot of different methods to "make" a revolution. Besides, which is more important?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by apathy maybe+Jun 18 2006, 06:57 AM--> (apathy maybe &#064; Jun 18 2006, 06:57 AM)
Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+--> (The Anarchist Tension)And my argument was intellectual. I have explained that being reactionary means anti-progressive and as pacifism impedes progression and in fact roles back any victories of progression through giving the state the opportunity to repress the movement is therefore reactionary.[/b]But you have not shown howpacifism impedes progression. [/b]
Yes I have.

Empirical evidence suggests that the state will use violence to smash any attempt to overthrow it and capitalism and create a different society.

Resisting non-violently is just making it easier for them to do that and as we have seen in times of massive social upheaval the state, although doesn&#39;t require it, will always look for "legal" ways to suppress such social movements which confront them in such a profound way.

By insisting that we do not resist violently we concede defeat, because no matter how much you lay down in the streets or march peacefully the state will have absolutely no qualms with gunning you down, running you over with tanks and throwing you into prison camps.

Or are we to suspect that state forces will be bowelled over by our moral self-righteousness and lay down their weapons?


And I believe the burden of proof would be on you to show this, rather then on those who claim that pacifism is not anti-progression. Examples of it being progressive could include forest protests.

Pacifists usually are unable to make the distinction between concessionary tactical struggles and fundamental societal transition.

We&#39;re not talking about defending trees here we&#39;re talking about the absolute transition of society; the brake down of the very fabric and systems which humans have created for themselves over the last millennia.

There is a vast difference between resisting forest cutters through non-violence in order to defend a forest and resisting non-violently the security forces, police and armed services in an attempt to destroy capitalism and the state.

They might give up on the forest, but they are never going to simply roll over when we demand the creation of an anarchist society. They will fight to the bitter end.

As this argument is understood through empirical evidence and an observation of history it is a logical conclusion. The burden of proof does not fall to me. If you honestly believe that resisting non-violently the overwhelming violence of the state can achieve its destruction then I would like to see how.



The Anarchist [email protected]
Now, if you were to [intellectually] attempt to refute that, you could perhaps attack my line of argument that suggests pacifism impedes progression by demonstrating empirically that it doesn&#39;t. You could also discuss how the tactic can bring down the state which does not lead to repression. These are all intellectual arguments that would develop this debate...How could pacifism bring down the state? Examples have been given, one is if no body paid taxes, how would the government operate? I did not say they were good examples.

If people refused to pay their taxes they would throw "ring leaders" in prison, make examples of people and then force us to pay.

Regardless you can&#39;t avoid paying taxes, it&#39;s done automatically. You could refuse to pay council tax in the UK, but there have been instances of old women being thrown into jail for refusing to pay it.



The Anarchist Tension
Let&#39;s drop the word reactionary then, and simply say that pacifism impedes progression and gives the state power to repress the movement?It does not impede progression, and again it is up to you to show that it does.

I understand that you live in fairy land but for the rest of us we live in reality and can witness first hand the violence of the state.

Let&#39;s take for example the reaction of the state to demonstrations like the G8. In Princes Street in Edinburgh during the Stirling G8 a year ago, a massive group of anarchists, black bloc and so called pacifists attempted to get passed a police line. The police charged and battered at protestors. Take Genoa, the same happened there, in fact a protestor was killed. Let&#39;s take Seattle and Prague where people attempted to protest "peacefully".

The state does not make distinctions between peaceful and non-peaceful protestors. They see all anarchists as combatants against the state and will attack accordingly. And this is only at a protest against the G8. We want to destroy the state and capitalism. You can imagine then, how it will be.

There is no reason to believe otherwise and if you are asserting there is, the burden of proof lays with you.

Furthermore, what is classed as violent and non-violent? What happens if a peaceful protest attempts to walk passed a police line? Does that class as violence? Because I&#39;ve seen people attempt that and refusing to fight back when the police are beating you over the head may have made them feel morally superior, but it didn&#39;t achieve anything except for broken heads.


To a certain extent it also does not even give the state the "power" to repress the "movement" (which movement anyway?).

The anarchist movement.

And of course it does. The state expects us to be violent. When we turn around and say, "we resist non-violently" they say "Oh, well, that makes our job allot easier." Shooting people and throwing people in prison who do not resist violently are allot easier to control than those who do. That&#39;s just logical.


If we are talking about using pacifism to achieve short-term aims in this current society, I would argue it takes away power from (at least "democratic") governments, as they have to worry (at least a little) about public opinion.

As we have seen throughout history, the state never cares about public opinion when crunch comes to crunch and let&#39;s also be aware of the fact that they control the media, so it makes no difference to them, as again history clearly shows, whether people see anarchists getting smashed over the head or not.

[The Feral Underclass]

I&#39;m assuming the non-reply means you have no response to my argument?

[The Feral Underclass]

I&#39;m assuming the non-reply means you have no response to my argument?

[The Feral Underclass]

I&#39;m assuming the non-reply means you have no response to my argument?

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by The Anachist Tension+--> (The Anachist Tension) I&#39;m assuming the non-reply means you have no response to my argument?[/b] Sorry, I do. But I&#39;ve been writing it piecemeal. And I actually do not really disagree with you on a lot of points (or else you&#39;ve convinced me and I didn&#39;t notice).


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+--> (The Anarchist Tension) Resisting non-violently is just making it easier for them to do that and as we have seen in times of massive social upheaval the state, although doesn&#39;t require it, will always look for "legal" ways to suppress such social movements which confront them in such a profound way.

By insisting that we do not resist violently we concede defeat, because no matter how much you lay down in the streets or march peacefully the state will have absolutely no qualms with gunning you down, running you over with tanks and throwing you into prison camps.

Or are we to suspect that state forces will be bowelled over by our moral self-righteousness and lay down their weapons?[/b] I still do not agree that it impedes progression. It might not be productive, but nothing then stops somebody (else) from then using violence.

I am not insisting anything, and the few pacifists that I have talked to (who I actually respect) do not insist either.

And no I do not think that they will take any notice of anyone&#39;s moral self-righteousness.


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
Pacifists usually are unable to make the distinction between concessionary tactical struggles and fundamental societal transition.
Perhaps.


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
As this argument is understood through empirical evidence and an observation of history it is a logical conclusion. The burden of proof does not fall to me. If you honestly believe that resisting non-violently the overwhelming violence of the state can achieve its destruction then I would like to see how.I actually agree with you on this, but I was talking about progression, which can occur without the overthrow of the state system. And non-violence can be progressive as I demonstrated.


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
If people refused to pay their taxes they would throw "ring leaders" in prison, make examples of people and then force us to pay.

Regardless you can&#39;t avoid paying taxes, it&#39;s done automatically. You could refuse to pay council tax in the UK, but there have been instances of old women being thrown into jail for refusing to pay it.I did not say they were good examples. But if everybody stopped co-operating with the state, of what use is it?


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
I understand that you live in fairy land but for the rest of us we live in reality and can witness first hand the violence of the state.Ha ha&#33; I have witnessed the violence of the state many a-time. Why just the other day I received a letter in the mail asking me to pay money, for I didn&#39;t vote. I also know theoretically the violence of the state.


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension

Let&#39;s take for example the reaction of the state to demonstrations like the G8. [...]

The state does not make distinctions between peaceful and non-peaceful protestors. They see all anarchists as combatants against the state and will attack accordingly. And this is only at a protest against the G8. We want to destroy the state and capitalism. You can imagine then, how it will be.

There is no reason to believe otherwise and if you are asserting there is, the burden of proof lays with you.
For the record, what did those protests actually achieve? Did they bring about an end to capitalism? Or even seriously disrupt the G8 etc.? I&#39;m not saying that the protests are bad or useless, just that they worked as well as pacifism.



Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
Furthermore, what is classed as violent and non-violent? What happens if a peaceful protest attempts to walk passed a police line? Does that class as violence? Because I&#39;ve seen people attempt that and refusing to fight back when the police are beating you over the head may have made them feel morally superior, but it didn&#39;t achieve anything except for broken heads. Hey I&#39;m not arguing this point. You would have to ask a pacifist.


The Anarchist [email protected]
The anarchist movement.

And of course it does. The state expects us to be violent. When we turn around and say, "we resist non-violently" they say "Oh, well, that makes our job allot easier." Shooting people and throwing people in prison who do not resist violently are allot easier to control than those who do. That&#39;s just logical.
I did say to a certain extent. I haven&#39;t actually meant that many anarchists, so I do not know if they is an anarchist movement around where I am. But I see your point.


The Anarchist Tension
As we have seen throughout history, the state never cares about public opinion when crunch comes to crunch and let&#39;s also be aware of the fact that they control the media, so it makes no difference to them, as again history clearly shows, whether people see anarchists getting smashed over the head or not.Umm...



You see TAT, I am not a pacifist, but I have sympathy with the ideas of non-violence. I do think the violence will be necessary to bring a successful revolution. But I think that non-violence can be a useful tactic, and can be used for progressive struggles.

Edit: The quotes are fucked.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by The Anachist Tension+--> (The Anachist Tension) I&#39;m assuming the non-reply means you have no response to my argument?[/b] Sorry, I do. But I&#39;ve been writing it piecemeal. And I actually do not really disagree with you on a lot of points (or else you&#39;ve convinced me and I didn&#39;t notice).


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+--> (The Anarchist Tension) Resisting non-violently is just making it easier for them to do that and as we have seen in times of massive social upheaval the state, although doesn&#39;t require it, will always look for "legal" ways to suppress such social movements which confront them in such a profound way.

By insisting that we do not resist violently we concede defeat, because no matter how much you lay down in the streets or march peacefully the state will have absolutely no qualms with gunning you down, running you over with tanks and throwing you into prison camps.

Or are we to suspect that state forces will be bowelled over by our moral self-righteousness and lay down their weapons?[/b] I still do not agree that it impedes progression. It might not be productive, but nothing then stops somebody (else) from then using violence.

I am not insisting anything, and the few pacifists that I have talked to (who I actually respect) do not insist either.

And no I do not think that they will take any notice of anyone&#39;s moral self-righteousness.


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
Pacifists usually are unable to make the distinction between concessionary tactical struggles and fundamental societal transition.
Perhaps.


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
As this argument is understood through empirical evidence and an observation of history it is a logical conclusion. The burden of proof does not fall to me. If you honestly believe that resisting non-violently the overwhelming violence of the state can achieve its destruction then I would like to see how.I actually agree with you on this, but I was talking about progression, which can occur without the overthrow of the state system. And non-violence can be progressive as I demonstrated.


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
If people refused to pay their taxes they would throw "ring leaders" in prison, make examples of people and then force us to pay.

Regardless you can&#39;t avoid paying taxes, it&#39;s done automatically. You could refuse to pay council tax in the UK, but there have been instances of old women being thrown into jail for refusing to pay it.I did not say they were good examples. But if everybody stopped co-operating with the state, of what use is it?


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
I understand that you live in fairy land but for the rest of us we live in reality and can witness first hand the violence of the state.Ha ha&#33; I have witnessed the violence of the state many a-time. Why just the other day I received a letter in the mail asking me to pay money, for I didn&#39;t vote. I also know theoretically the violence of the state.


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension

Let&#39;s take for example the reaction of the state to demonstrations like the G8. [...]

The state does not make distinctions between peaceful and non-peaceful protestors. They see all anarchists as combatants against the state and will attack accordingly. And this is only at a protest against the G8. We want to destroy the state and capitalism. You can imagine then, how it will be.

There is no reason to believe otherwise and if you are asserting there is, the burden of proof lays with you.
For the record, what did those protests actually achieve? Did they bring about an end to capitalism? Or even seriously disrupt the G8 etc.? I&#39;m not saying that the protests are bad or useless, just that they worked as well as pacifism.



Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
Furthermore, what is classed as violent and non-violent? What happens if a peaceful protest attempts to walk passed a police line? Does that class as violence? Because I&#39;ve seen people attempt that and refusing to fight back when the police are beating you over the head may have made them feel morally superior, but it didn&#39;t achieve anything except for broken heads. Hey I&#39;m not arguing this point. You would have to ask a pacifist.


The Anarchist [email protected]
The anarchist movement.

And of course it does. The state expects us to be violent. When we turn around and say, "we resist non-violently" they say "Oh, well, that makes our job allot easier." Shooting people and throwing people in prison who do not resist violently are allot easier to control than those who do. That&#39;s just logical.
I did say to a certain extent. I haven&#39;t actually meant that many anarchists, so I do not know if they is an anarchist movement around where I am. But I see your point.


The Anarchist Tension
As we have seen throughout history, the state never cares about public opinion when crunch comes to crunch and let&#39;s also be aware of the fact that they control the media, so it makes no difference to them, as again history clearly shows, whether people see anarchists getting smashed over the head or not.Umm...



You see TAT, I am not a pacifist, but I have sympathy with the ideas of non-violence. I do think the violence will be necessary to bring a successful revolution. But I think that non-violence can be a useful tactic, and can be used for progressive struggles.

Edit: The quotes are fucked.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by The Anachist Tension+--> (The Anachist Tension) I&#39;m assuming the non-reply means you have no response to my argument?[/b] Sorry, I do. But I&#39;ve been writing it piecemeal. And I actually do not really disagree with you on a lot of points (or else you&#39;ve convinced me and I didn&#39;t notice).


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+--> (The Anarchist Tension) Resisting non-violently is just making it easier for them to do that and as we have seen in times of massive social upheaval the state, although doesn&#39;t require it, will always look for "legal" ways to suppress such social movements which confront them in such a profound way.

By insisting that we do not resist violently we concede defeat, because no matter how much you lay down in the streets or march peacefully the state will have absolutely no qualms with gunning you down, running you over with tanks and throwing you into prison camps.

Or are we to suspect that state forces will be bowelled over by our moral self-righteousness and lay down their weapons?[/b] I still do not agree that it impedes progression. It might not be productive, but nothing then stops somebody (else) from then using violence.

I am not insisting anything, and the few pacifists that I have talked to (who I actually respect) do not insist either.

And no I do not think that they will take any notice of anyone&#39;s moral self-righteousness.


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
Pacifists usually are unable to make the distinction between concessionary tactical struggles and fundamental societal transition.
Perhaps.


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
As this argument is understood through empirical evidence and an observation of history it is a logical conclusion. The burden of proof does not fall to me. If you honestly believe that resisting non-violently the overwhelming violence of the state can achieve its destruction then I would like to see how.I actually agree with you on this, but I was talking about progression, which can occur without the overthrow of the state system. And non-violence can be progressive as I demonstrated.


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
If people refused to pay their taxes they would throw "ring leaders" in prison, make examples of people and then force us to pay.

Regardless you can&#39;t avoid paying taxes, it&#39;s done automatically. You could refuse to pay council tax in the UK, but there have been instances of old women being thrown into jail for refusing to pay it.I did not say they were good examples. But if everybody stopped co-operating with the state, of what use is it?


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
I understand that you live in fairy land but for the rest of us we live in reality and can witness first hand the violence of the state.Ha ha&#33; I have witnessed the violence of the state many a-time. Why just the other day I received a letter in the mail asking me to pay money, for I didn&#39;t vote. I also know theoretically the violence of the state.


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension

Let&#39;s take for example the reaction of the state to demonstrations like the G8. [...]

The state does not make distinctions between peaceful and non-peaceful protestors. They see all anarchists as combatants against the state and will attack accordingly. And this is only at a protest against the G8. We want to destroy the state and capitalism. You can imagine then, how it will be.

There is no reason to believe otherwise and if you are asserting there is, the burden of proof lays with you.
For the record, what did those protests actually achieve? Did they bring about an end to capitalism? Or even seriously disrupt the G8 etc.? I&#39;m not saying that the protests are bad or useless, just that they worked as well as pacifism.



Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
Furthermore, what is classed as violent and non-violent? What happens if a peaceful protest attempts to walk passed a police line? Does that class as violence? Because I&#39;ve seen people attempt that and refusing to fight back when the police are beating you over the head may have made them feel morally superior, but it didn&#39;t achieve anything except for broken heads. Hey I&#39;m not arguing this point. You would have to ask a pacifist.


The Anarchist [email protected]
The anarchist movement.

And of course it does. The state expects us to be violent. When we turn around and say, "we resist non-violently" they say "Oh, well, that makes our job allot easier." Shooting people and throwing people in prison who do not resist violently are allot easier to control than those who do. That&#39;s just logical.
I did say to a certain extent. I haven&#39;t actually meant that many anarchists, so I do not know if they is an anarchist movement around where I am. But I see your point.


The Anarchist Tension
As we have seen throughout history, the state never cares about public opinion when crunch comes to crunch and let&#39;s also be aware of the fact that they control the media, so it makes no difference to them, as again history clearly shows, whether people see anarchists getting smashed over the head or not.Umm...



You see TAT, I am not a pacifist, but I have sympathy with the ideas of non-violence. I do think the violence will be necessary to bring a successful revolution. But I think that non-violence can be a useful tactic, and can be used for progressive struggles.

Edit: The quotes are fucked.

[Hiero]

Here is a quote from Sartre, in his prefae to one of Fanon&#39;s works on colonisation and national liberation, The Wretched of the Earth.


Try to understand this at any rate: if violence began this evening and if exploitation and oppression had never exist on the earth, perhaps the slogans of non-violence might end the quarrel. But if the whole regime, even your non violent ideas, are conditioned by a thousand year old oppression, your passivity serves only to place you in the ranks of the oppressors.

He is talking to Europeans about violence against the colonist/imperialist. In cases where you can win, and violence is now a possible force, that means going behind have a rowdy protest, then violence should be used to gain victory. Once you have a working class base that supports you, that is large support ourside the party, collecctive, organistation, group, then you can use violence to consolidate victory.

[Hiero]

Here is a quote from Sartre, in his prefae to one of Fanon&#39;s works on colonisation and national liberation, The Wretched of the Earth.


Try to understand this at any rate: if violence began this evening and if exploitation and oppression had never exist on the earth, perhaps the slogans of non-violence might end the quarrel. But if the whole regime, even your non violent ideas, are conditioned by a thousand year old oppression, your passivity serves only to place you in the ranks of the oppressors.

He is talking to Europeans about violence against the colonist/imperialist. In cases where you can win, and violence is now a possible force, that means going behind have a rowdy protest, then violence should be used to gain victory. Once you have a working class base that supports you, that is large support ourside the party, collecctive, organistation, group, then you can use violence to consolidate victory.

[Hiero]

Here is a quote from Sartre, in his prefae to one of Fanon&#39;s works on colonisation and national liberation, The Wretched of the Earth.


Try to understand this at any rate: if violence began this evening and if exploitation and oppression had never exist on the earth, perhaps the slogans of non-violence might end the quarrel. But if the whole regime, even your non violent ideas, are conditioned by a thousand year old oppression, your passivity serves only to place you in the ranks of the oppressors.

He is talking to Europeans about violence against the colonist/imperialist. In cases where you can win, and violence is now a possible force, that means going behind have a rowdy protest, then violence should be used to gain victory. Once you have a working class base that supports you, that is large support ourside the party, collecctive, organistation, group, then you can use violence to consolidate victory.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 23 2006, 08:51 AM
I actually agree with you on this, but I was talking about progression, which can occur without the overthrow of the state system. And non-violence can be progressive as I demonstrated.
Concession occurs within capitalism and the state, not progression. Progression can only truely exist when the state and capitalism have been destroyed.


But if everybody stopped co-operating with the state, of what use is it?

You seem to be missing the point. The state won&#39;t stop "co-operating" with you. If you find a way to stop co-operating with it, the state will find away to force you to.


For the record, what did those protests actually achieve?

A moment of visibel unequvical confrontation and resistance.


Did they bring about an end to capitalism?

Clearly not, and no one ever believed that it would, so what&#39;s your point?


Or even seriously disrupt the G8 etc.?

It depends on what you mean by "serious." Postponing the meeting for a day, was, in my opinion quite a success.


Hey I&#39;m not arguing this point. You would have to ask a pacifist.

So what the hell are we arguing about?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 23 2006, 08:51 AM
I actually agree with you on this, but I was talking about progression, which can occur without the overthrow of the state system. And non-violence can be progressive as I demonstrated.
Concession occurs within capitalism and the state, not progression. Progression can only truely exist when the state and capitalism have been destroyed.


But if everybody stopped co-operating with the state, of what use is it?

You seem to be missing the point. The state won&#39;t stop "co-operating" with you. If you find a way to stop co-operating with it, the state will find away to force you to.


For the record, what did those protests actually achieve?

A moment of visibel unequvical confrontation and resistance.


Did they bring about an end to capitalism?

Clearly not, and no one ever believed that it would, so what&#39;s your point?


Or even seriously disrupt the G8 etc.?

It depends on what you mean by "serious." Postponing the meeting for a day, was, in my opinion quite a success.


Hey I&#39;m not arguing this point. You would have to ask a pacifist.

So what the hell are we arguing about?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 23 2006, 08:51 AM
I actually agree with you on this, but I was talking about progression, which can occur without the overthrow of the state system. And non-violence can be progressive as I demonstrated.
Concession occurs within capitalism and the state, not progression. Progression can only truely exist when the state and capitalism have been destroyed.


But if everybody stopped co-operating with the state, of what use is it?

You seem to be missing the point. The state won&#39;t stop "co-operating" with you. If you find a way to stop co-operating with it, the state will find away to force you to.


For the record, what did those protests actually achieve?

A moment of visibel unequvical confrontation and resistance.


Did they bring about an end to capitalism?

Clearly not, and no one ever believed that it would, so what&#39;s your point?


Or even seriously disrupt the G8 etc.?

It depends on what you mean by "serious." Postponing the meeting for a day, was, in my opinion quite a success.


Hey I&#39;m not arguing this point. You would have to ask a pacifist.

So what the hell are we arguing about?

[hack-e-sack]

I practice both...... I suppose this is impossible, but when I&#39;m attacked I try to block as often as is humanly possible, and have never IN MY LIFETIME ever thrown the FIRST punch, however, I will hit someone back ONLY if there is no chance for a peaceful resolution.......

I do beleive that to change the world, violence WILL be necessary, however, at the moment and for the next few years, it is best both for the cause, and for all organisms to continue with pacifism, and I know I will get some criticism for this, but I do endorse PARTS of "The Anarchists Cookbook" by William Powell.... I have a link to it online for those... interested....

[hack-e-sack]

I practice both...... I suppose this is impossible, but when I&#39;m attacked I try to block as often as is humanly possible, and have never IN MY LIFETIME ever thrown the FIRST punch, however, I will hit someone back ONLY if there is no chance for a peaceful resolution.......

I do beleive that to change the world, violence WILL be necessary, however, at the moment and for the next few years, it is best both for the cause, and for all organisms to continue with pacifism, and I know I will get some criticism for this, but I do endorse PARTS of "The Anarchists Cookbook" by William Powell.... I have a link to it online for those... interested....

[hack-e-sack]

I practice both...... I suppose this is impossible, but when I&#39;m attacked I try to block as often as is humanly possible, and have never IN MY LIFETIME ever thrown the FIRST punch, however, I will hit someone back ONLY if there is no chance for a peaceful resolution.......

I do beleive that to change the world, violence WILL be necessary, however, at the moment and for the next few years, it is best both for the cause, and for all organisms to continue with pacifism, and I know I will get some criticism for this, but I do endorse PARTS of "The Anarchists Cookbook" by William Powell.... I have a link to it online for those... interested....

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+--> (The Anarchist Tension) Concession occurs within capitalism and the state, not progression. Progression can only truely exist when the state and capitalism have been destroyed.[/b] Obviously we were using different definitions of progression. Using your definition then I would have to agree with you that pacifism cannot be progressive.


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+--> ( The Anarchist Tension)You seem to be missing the point. The state won&#39;t stop "co-operating" with you. If you find a way to stop co-operating with it, the state will find away to force you to.[/b]The state is more then just an abstract thing. It is made up of individuals (I was trying to explore this concept in the thread I started on state society and individuals). As such, if only a few people in the government, and perhaps a few in the military and police are left in the state, then it doesn&#39;t have much power. If the state has no armed wing, it cannot do much eh?



The Anarchist [email protected]
So what the hell are we arguing about?I think it was a problem of definition. I think that non-violence can achieve things, I called it progression, you call it concession.


hack&#045;e&#045;sack
I do endorse PARTS of "The Anarchists Cookbook" by William Powell.... I have a link to it online for those... interested....I am interested in which parts of this book you endorse. While I have never read the original the consensus seems that it is a crock of shit. Please link to those parts.

[Guest]

A great deal of pro violence individuals, who&#39;ve done nothing. Profess violence all you like, but do nothing, we don&#39;t need them. Activists DO things, they do what can be done. They sign petitions they attend and organize protests. They study media and spread the word when human rights are being violated.

Violence has it&#39;s place and is a powerfull tool. But those who act aren&#39;t so ignorant as to post their actions on a board. The folk you here supporting the use of violence are those angry individuals without the courage or the intelligence to act. I suggest if you&#39;re angry enough to use violence you have more to learn. Destroying property is easy (getting away with it much harder), taking lives has a cost on your soul.

Become an activist, if the revolution demands violence, then plan well. But an act of violence without the revolution hurts the cause.

[bcbm]

Since when are being supportive of violence and being an activist mutually exclusive categories?


The folk you here supporting the use of violence are those angry individuals without the courage or the intelligence to act.

Maybe we should calm down and pass around a petition instead. :rolleyes:

[*[email protected]*]

I only use violence as a last resort, but I prefer it because its quick and effective (or atleast the way I use it is).

[ahab]

The best way to get a point across is violence. Senseless violence is stupid, but in the fact of fighting the opressors violence is the only way. While all the pacifists stand together in front of tanks and get run over the violent type will be in the trenches planning to destroy the tanks&#33; Pacifism is good in the sense that we are looking out for the best of the human race but as of right now peace is not an option, we have to fight for peace, we have to destrot those against it to have it.

[An archist]

But think of this too, what gives you a better image for the rest of the world, the pacifist courageously stanidng in front of the tank, or the guerilla soldiers, attacking the tank?

In each situation, think about wich one works best.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by An [email protected] 27 2006, 04:39 AM
But think of this too, what gives you a better image for the rest of the world, the pacifist courageously stanidng in front of the tank, or the guerilla soldiers, attacking the tank?
If it comes down to me fighting for my life and my freedom, I couldn&#39;t give a fuck what the rest of the world thinks.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by An [email protected] 27 2006, 11:39 AM
But think of this too, what gives you a better image for the rest of the world, the pacifist courageously stanidng in front of the tank, or the guerilla soldiers, attacking the tank?

In each situation, think about wich one works best.
It&#39;s not a question of which image looks better, it&#39;s a question of winning and to answer your question in those terms, the guerilla soldier attacking the tank is far more effective.

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16 2006, 11:09 AM

No, there&#39;s allot to debate, you&#39;re just incapable of debating it.
You are just incapable of letting go of your flawed perception on what is or what isn&#39;t reactionary. In fact, I think you are just too arrogant to realize that you are wrong.

[An archist]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 27 2006, 11:52 AM
It&#39;s not a question of which image looks better, it&#39;s a question of winning and to answer your question in those terms, the guerilla soldier attacking the tank is far more effective.
Right, but in the situation we live in, most people do&#39;nt support violence, so it&#39;s better to use non-violent actions, they will get better results then throwing bricks at windows.

[bcbm]

Right, but in the situation we live in, most people do&#39;nt support violence, so it&#39;s better to use non-violent actions, they will get better results then throwing bricks at windows.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Throwig bricks at windows has gotten our various messages far more attention (much of it surprisingly positive) than they ever received previously.

[An archist]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 1 2006, 11:13 AM
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Throwig bricks at windows has gotten our various messages far more attention (much of it surprisingly positive) than they ever received previously.
But in a lot of cases you simply hear or see on the news: "People were rioting at a demonstration today, the damages were...." and nothing about why there was a demonstration or why the people started rioting.
Your average joe will probably think &#39;damn punks, can&#39;t they get a job?&#39; Not realising we were actually fighting for his and our job.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by An [email protected] 1 2006, 06:46 AM
But in a lot of cases you simply hear or see on the news: "People were rioting at a demonstration today, the damages were...." and nothing about why there was a demonstration or why the people started rioting.
Your average joe will probably think &#39;damn punks, can&#39;t they get a job?&#39; Not realising we were actually fighting for his and our job.
Usually the press will at least report why the demonstration occured. After Seattle, anarchists got all sorts of media coverage and were able to discuss their ideas on lots of programs. Similarly, I saw a lot of articles dealing with anti-capitalist and anarchist ideas in mainstream newspapers during the Goethenburg riots, and Genoa.

And really, if people are this mindnumbingly stupid, our cause is pretty well lost anyway. I don&#39;t think most people (especially outside the US) have any real aversion to a riot, its practically a national pasttime in some parts of the world. We can do a better job of publicizing our goals as well, and trying to get coverage of our other social activities to lessen the "violent" image.

Not that I think any of this really matters. The fact of the matter is that we&#39;re probably going to have to use violence to overthrow this system and people won&#39;t be comfortable with that until their material interests come to actively depend on destroying all of this. No sense hiding behind images of "nonviolence" like the reformists. In the mean time, it doesn&#39;t matter if we sing songs and pass out flowers or raze entire cities to the ground (though the latter would be more fun).