Is violence acceptable? - Is violence something to be used a

[gunnarSUmedlem]

At the big top meetings in Seattle, Praha, Genoa, Quebec, Gothenburg etc. were some of the people that came to demonstrate violent. When the cops came, many anarchists and syndicalists began to throw stones at them. Was this right? Even though it was the cops who started the fight?
Lenin used violence at the russian revolution. Mao took China in a struggle against the nationalist. Che and Fidel used guns when they took Cuba in 1958.
I think this was not right. Both Russia, China and Cuba became despotist regimes. Ecspesially Russia and China. Cuba has still the same boss, and is boycotted by USA, so they had no choice but to keep being a despotist regime. But both Russia and China are big countries with lots of capable workers. No of them became socialist communities.
Is this what will happen to Cuba when USA gives up the blocade? I sure hopes not. The thing China and Russia had in common was that the bad things did'nt happen before the revolutionary leaders were dead. Stalin did ruinate Russia.
The difference between the violence in Russia and China and the violence surrounding the top meetings is that the chinese, cuban and russian violence had a goal: crushing capitalism and make a people's regime. Why hasn't these countries became socialism regimes? The new leftists, those who are protesting in Genoa, Praha, Seattle etc, are mostly peaceful. The prosent that uses violence uses violence just because they don't like the way things are today. Neither do I, but I think much can be solved by negotations. The Israeli people struggled hard to be free from the anti-semittism. Now the same people has became anti-moslems. The chinese revolution was against the nationalist torture. Today, China kills 4 million people a year.
I think that when the PLO is getting freed, they will be discriminating somebody. When the chinese people makes a new revolution they will squeeze out somebody. Violence makes more violence.
Okay, I know that the police were provocating, and they attacked first and so on in these big top meetings. I was in Gothenburg, when the police first shot somebody just for protesting. But we are more intelligent than the establishment. We shouldn't let us be provocated that way. Peace and anti-violence, civil disorder and striking through worker's unions is better weapons than streetstones in the battle for revolution. Gandhi's non-violent freedom struggle could be the entrance to a real socialist regime if Gandhi were a socialist. Violent revolutions will never work, is my opinion.

(Excuse my english, I'm from Norway)

[cubalibre]

Hi,
After reading your post I felt the need to answer back. It is true that violence is not the most ideal path to revolution but when leaders don't give you any other chance, what can you do?
Day after day 24 000 people, of whom 75% are children, die from hunger. How long are we gonna wait for this to change? Are we gonna make "negociations" which everybody knows will never lead to anything.
Yes what you just read: THEY WOULDN'T LEAD TO ANYTHING. How am I so sure about it? Well,right before the summit of Gotenburg, Ireland had a referendum for the acceptance of the Nice Treaty. The Irish people voted against. Did that change anything? NO The Irish leaders even said that they will make another referendum untill the people say "yes" or they would just ignore it. They did so.
Now a referendum, in theory, is much stronger than any "negociation", if that doesn't work, then what will?

Plus you use the example of palestine. Are they achieving anything? I probably hope so but it can't be compared because the leading countries of the world will find benefits in peace in the middle east so they do put pressure on both sides. But do th eleaders want to interumpt globalisation? Do they? They say they listen to the people but the above example of the Irish show it is not true. They will go on with their plans because it benefits them.
Anyways, the "violent"protests during summit have a strategy: They aim at raising the material costs of each summit by attacking only corporation and banks and to scare away leaders. So far this is the only tactic that did work. Peaceful protester got shot and beaten up but more radical ones manage to force the leaders to cancel their meetings like a some weeks ago in Barcelona.
Plus even though the media lies about radical protesters like the Anarchist Black Blocs, they have managed to touch the public. Before Seattle in schools globalisation was never debatted, I never heard of that...most people didn't. Here as well we managed something.
In History, protesters have always started being peaceful but as soon as they had an importance they started getting shot, like in Gotenburg, and then killed them "for fun". At the end we had to use "violence"to defend ourselves.
Furthermore the fact tha China, USSR, Cuba...have ended up despostic is not because of the use of violence but because of the system established later on. In each of these countries, power was not in hands of the workers (like in anarchism) but in hands of authoritarian government who supposedly knew the desires of the people.
Right now is pretty scary what CHina does to Tibet and its own people and how it calls herself "communist"when they struggle for more free trade...

[DaNatural]

nice post cubalibre, i agree with you in all regards, gunnar, violence is needed cus people are fed up and violence is pretty much the only answer. i live in canada and i was given a good laugh when Prime Minister Chretien said while in Genoa during the riots, that he will not let these anarchists destroy democracy, i would love to know what democracy he is talking about. no matter what we seem to do, whether it be peaceful protests or who we vote for it doesnt make a difference, so when people are fed up we turn to violence. I often think of things that I can do to make change and I am often left with the answer being, nothing. So in turn if I cant make my own situation better people like myself like to make it as difficult as possible for those capitalists to do what they want. peace

[ramon]

ahhh another canadian...yeah i believe violence is acceptable. just be prepared to fight.

(Edited by ramon at 11:03 pm on Aug. 27, 2001)

[gunnarSUmedlem]

Hello comrades. I see that cubalibre and DaNatural has a point. The Cuba is despotism because USA is boycotting, China and Russia got psychopat leaders and that stuff. But I am still saying that violence at the top meetings are bad. But my critic is a critic to violence - not to the hate against capitalism. I hate capitalism as much as the next guy, but only the capitalism. The police is a part of the working class too, and will have serious benefits of a revolution they too. I know they've got roots in the upper class, but they are paid workers just as much as the industrial workers, the burger friers, the teachers etc. And many cops are good guys, but they've been brain-washed by the government. I think this is a war against opinions - not against people.
Why do we want a revolution? Because the capitalists are trying to use us as a money-machine. That is unfair, and it's unfair because all men and women should be equal and free, and should've got the same right, right? This has no government realised, because they accept capitalism or are using us, el pueblo, as they're own moneymakers. All people are equal, the cops too! And violence to cops just because they're cops - is real bigotry! In Gothenburg, there I were, most of the violence had no goal. It was just plain vandalism - chrushing the windows at store's, throwing stones at the police etc. Throwing stones at the police is not a good thing, but it can be justified - the cops in Gothenburg were the most provocating people I ever had met. But why? We ain't any closer to the revolution just because we're kicking some police ass? They ain't capitalists just because they're making a living? I think they should make a living another way than kicking us proletars, but that's my way of seeing things. After all, the cops are a bunch of brain-washed bullys thinking they're helping the society.
We should rather do like in Praha, where some friends of me went. One of the groups did just sit down, singing norwegian peace-songs in front of the police. This is showing that we is'nt that childish that we let us self be provocated by some fences.
Or we could do like Ya Basta - the Italian "terrorist" group. You've seen them? Walking around like Michelin-men, in thick suits acting like armours. They are just walking through the police's fences, not even knowing that the cops are trying to punch the hell out of them. I don't know what Ya Basta is trying to do when they have passed the fences, but I think they will move into the top meeting and interrupt, make the negotations fail. That's what happened in Seattle and Praha.
Just making trouble without hurting someone is the best way to do things. We will then get more positive papers and TV news, attracting more people to our anti-globalisation movement. Therefore, it's better to be non-violent and offensive than being just vandals crushing windows and ruinating our attributes.

El pueblo unido jamas sera vencido!

[pce]

"Peaceful protester got shot and beaten up but more radical ones manage to force the leaders to cancel their meetings like a some weeks ago in Barcelona. "

violent protests might cancel meetings here and there or postpone them here and there, but they will never get rid of them. if things continue like this with the violence, the only thing accomplished would be more powerful resistance and anti-"terrorism." which brings me to my next point, violence only feeds the "confused and angry young people" image of free-thinking and intelligent people. the media only uses these violent images to get the public against the evils of "anarchism" or "communism."

i also agree with gunnarSUmedlem in that the police are also working class people. fighting them will accomplish nothing. only through peace will the "leaders" take notice. i heard that during the last meeting at genoa, the meeting place was barrackaded for several blocks around the leaders and the leaders didn't even see anything. if the protests are peaceful, they will be allowed closer and closer and as a result will have a larger effect on the leaders because the protesters might finally be SEEN.

[Chief Rebel Angel]

i think violence should always be kept as a last resort.. once the negatiations have failed...

[kingbee]

re: dictators

marx said that a socialist society had to have an undisputed leader to lead the people from socialsim to communsim didnt he? i forget the term he used- something along the lines of the dictatorship of the proletariat

[SiliconRain]

that's dictatorship of the masses kingbee ;)

it is very refreshing to find someone with a new point of view on the way we handle and fight the police and the establishment. Now i agree in principle that the polie are people like us who have just been brainwashed by the good-government bullshit that is fed to us all. However they are defending capitalism, and as such they are part of the establishment, therefore part of the problem. They are the reason we are forced to use violence in the first place, and as such we have to fight back i whichever way the situation calls for, if that should mean violence in cases, so be it.

[jose lopez]

compañeros, Im sure that ghandy was a great peaceful revolutionary...he was shot...and martin luther king.....he was shot...peace???? yes its a good idea, but when your tired off protesting peacefully and somebody hits you in the head just because some oficer decides to break the concentration every body falls down to the floor, a young girl its grabed by to secret police oficers and she is yelling out loud her name, you think to your self.....what in the hell its going on??? where is the democracy that all politics talk about?? and then anger takes your heart and problaby if you had a shotgun you will lift up a barricade and start shooting, I know its not the way but ..they have the shootguns, they have the media *whith them they have the money....they have the power....yes they do and they use it agaist us....
Have you read about the police acts in barcelona,,,, did you know that police got mixed and dresed out like manifestators and starded to break phone boths and rioting to provoke police to attack everybody.......I know that what the goverment whats is to be more violent so they can condemed the movement but some times you can´t criticise the violent acts because they are self defensed....sorry about my english I dont practise much......check out www.antiglobalizacion.org.....salud compañeros

[Rashid]

I'd like to quote Marcuse: "(Capitalist) society tends to enforce on the opposition the principle of non-violence while daily perfecting its own "legitimate" violence, thus protecting the status quo." But also: "Violence differs from revolutionary power. Actions against vague, general, abstract targets are senseless; worse yet, they strenghten the regime."

[gunnarSUmedlem]

If we keep peaceful and gentle, the media will have to respect us. If we are violent and hostile, the media will find lots of reasons to discriminate us and disrespect us. If we are not using violence, and the cops is, the public opinion will be at our side. Then the revolution will be several steps closer...

[Nickademus]

Quote: from gunnarSUmedlem on 3:05 pm on Sep. 22, 2001
If we keep peaceful and gentle, the media will have to respect us. If we are violent and hostile, the media will find lots of reasons to discriminate us and disrespect us. If we are not using violence, and the cops is, the public opinion will be at our side. Then the revolution will be several steps closer...

i agree. all we have to do is look at genoa to discover that the valid arguments of the peaceful protestors are always ignored because of the violent protestors. these violent protestors are oftenshown as eveil and shit disturbers

[Moskitto]

Actually in China the bad things did happen in China before the revolutionarry leader died eg. Mao who I wouldn't be too surprised if it is uncovered that he killed more than Stalin or Hitler because I believe he Killed about 30 million in one of his famines, plus loads of political enemies and then there was the cultural revolution...

[Ernestito]

Ok, the anarchysts, as you put it, sarted throwing rocks at the cops bc they are the world symbol of opression!
lets quote Che
"the opressed must use violence against the one that has used violence against them, the opressor"
or something like that.
I mean, its understandable the rage and the hate kept inside that eventually has to burst.
So, yes, I think violence sometime down the road is needed.


(Edited by Ernestito at 3:56 am on Sep. 26, 2001)

[CommieBastard]

The problem with violence?
The causing of pain on other people.
But we have to remember what lies at the end. of our struggle.
At the end is the end of all pain.
Yes, sometimes we must fight people who are essentially nothing more than an appendage of the state, the police for example. The reason we must fight them? because though we cause these few people pain, the ultimate result is the ending of pain for everyone else. In the destruction of capitalist society it is a sad fact that there will be casualties, but the longer we delay, the more casualties there will be to capitalism, and the numbers are already monumental. Capitalism is worse than death, it is that which removes life, while keeping a hollow shell of the person wandering.
It causes pain, starvation, death, and suffering in all it's multitudinous forms, and must therefore be ended.
I put it to you, comrades, that the result of the ending of such pain must by definition justify a small level of violence and pain.

However, this is not a total endorsement of violence in all circumstances. Though it is inevitable that some violence will be necesary, we SHOULD keep such violence to a practical minimum. The aim is to achieve Utopia with the least overall suffering on the path.

To quote Godwin: "The right thing to do is that which brings about the greatest good. The greatest good being an end result of pleasure minus pain."

[CPK]

violence is acceptable.
in some cases.
if you are in a school fight.
you must fight back.
if you are in a war you must fight.
if you are playing tic tac toe, then you mustn't fight.
it's simple. defend yourself.
many of you abolish violence, which is ok.
we are all different. :)

[gunnarSUmedlem]

Violence should use focusing on a goal, or as self-defense. The stone throwing is often self-defense, but non-violent self-defense gets more respect from the media.

[Fires of History]

Violence should be used last, and used with great thought and the understanding of its severe gravity.

But there comes a time when enough is enough.

If you want power, you cannot expect the powers that be to just hand it over to you.

We can hope and have faith in the democratic process to change laws and progress. We can hope that through time all will have equal rights.

But when you hit a wall, and the powers that be refuse. YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!!!

Power to the People,
Trance