nonviolent and violent as one

[destroy*r*nation]

do you think that maybe we could have two groups nonviolent and violent working for the evolution as a team? like malcom X and mlkj just work together as a one two punch. nonviolent side gets things going and the violent side takes action. please post ideas

[Tower of Bebel]

Violence occures when it is necessairy. Pure non-violence only works when the bourgeoisie is willing to make some concessions. An example is the priode of economic boom during the 50s and 60s. But forget something. Their is violence (which mainly occurs in (pre-)revolutionary circumstances), non violence (Luther King and Ghandi) and -very important- threatening with violence.
During the 19th century and 20th century many strikes and demonstrations by the workers persuaded the bourgeoisie to give in as the bourgeoisie was afraid of escalation, revolution or in other words: violence.

[An archist]

Originally posted by destroy*r*[email protected] 06, 2007 07:35 pm
do you think that maybe we could have two groups nonviolent and violent working for the evolution as a team? like malcom X and mlkj just work together as a one two punch. nonviolent side gets things going and the violent side takes action. please post ideas
It is possible, not very likely, groups dedicated to non-violence get frustrated when other groups use violence.
What is possible is groups using violent tactics sometimes and non-violent tactics other times.

[Joby]

Nonviolence would be preferable, but I think several groups, such as the Black Panthers or Vice Lords, failed to make the revolution when their leaders were assasinated.

[abbielives!]

most of our tatics are essentally nonviolent, we just don't dissmiss violence as an option
(in this case i think it is important to distingush between planned and spontanious violence)

[partizan604]

We shouldn't be violent, but we have to be violent. we can't escape from being violent, because our opponents are.


(in this case i think it is important to distingush between planned and spontanious violence)

this is the choise most of us can't make.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:10 pm

(in this case i think it is important to distingush between planned and spontanious violence)

this is the choise most of us can't make.
What do you mean?

[partizan604]

this is the choise most of us can't make.

What do you mean?

If we decide to agree with violence, to use it in our fight - Will it only be planned?
Can we avoid spontanious violence?
This is the choise - organized actions or spontanious fights - should we be well organized or should we be mostly spontanious.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 08:00 pm


this is the choise most of us can't make.

What do you mean?

If we decide to agree with violence, to use it in our fight - Will it only be planned?
Can we avoid spontanious violence?
This is the choise - organized actions or spontanious fights - should we be well organized or should we be mostly spontanious.
Ah, I get you. I misinterpreted what you said.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by destroy*r*[email protected] 07, 2007 05:35 am
do you think that maybe we could have two groups nonviolent and violent working for the evolution as a team? like malcom X and mlkj just work together as a one two punch. nonviolent side gets things going and the violent side takes action. please post ideas
I think this happens anyway. Im not so sure in the current consciousness of our societies it can be coordinated.

But with a transformation of consciousness, when the revolution comes etc, perhaps it can be different.

So basically, this is nothing more than a conceptual discussion. Theres no practicality to it now, unless you are referring to it as a tactic in specific situations of direct action etc - eg the black bloc and the hippies working together, blockading and attacking the cops and protecting the blockaders.

[destroy*r*nation]

[QUOTE]So basically, this is nothing more than a conceptual discussion. Theres no practicality to it now, unless you are referring to it as a tactic in specific situations of direct action etc - eg the black bloc and the hippies working together, blockading and attacking the cops and protecting the blockaders.

this is exactly what i mean the army filling in when nessesary like an army sort of say. they are there to defend the speakers of ture respectful freedom and we would back them up.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Non-violence is preferable, but just as we won't always be able to even have a chance millitarily there will be some times when we have no hope without at least the threat of violence. It depends on the scenario, and on who the army is rooting for. Compare Prague 1968 with the Carnation Revolution.

But violence for the sake of violence will destroy the revolution-retribution and punishment will do likewise. If we want to shake the idea of "earning" wages and property for deeds done, seeing all work as socially produced, we ought to shake the idea of "earning" punishment for deeds done, considering they are also products of the social structure we live under.

Violence ought to be used only when even more violence would be enacted upon us if we did not use it. But- we need to be wary about what constitutes self-defence and what is really an act of agression or brutality masquerading as an act of self-defence.