A Justification for Revolutionary Violence within the United States

[Reclaimed Dasein]

A simple theoretical argument for revolutionary violence within the United States. The argument will rest on several clear but undefended premises.




The Iraq War was and is unjustified.
The Iraqis have the right to violently resist their occupation.
The moral worth of individuals is the same across the world.
Violence within the United States will more effectively end the war the Iraqi resistance.

Conclusion

Moral agents within the United States have the moral right and obligation to rise up against the United States to prevent continual warfare.

Should have clear contours. One and two seems noncontroversial. Three should be noncontroversial to most Marxists, Leftists, and humanists. The main controversial premise is 4, however it seems to be clearly true. An American resisting within the United States can disrupt the political, economic, and military base for continued operation within Iraq, where as an Iraqi can only disrupt active military operations by striking in Iraq.


Therefore, if we consider human life universally valuable and we have the ability to significantly alter the political situation, we should act. Theoretically speaking, of course.

[bcbm]

The times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_%28organization%29) they are a changin...

[Rascolnikova]

Would you justify your fourth premise in detail, please? It is where many people I know would disagree.

[JimmyJazz]

I don't get the thread title, you're not talking about "revolutionary" violence, you're talking about disrupting the military.

Which I would agree with in theory. If I could plausibly cause a significant disruption to the American MI-C through some act of sabotage or violence, I wouldn't hesitate on any moral grounds. But I'm not going land myself in jail or get shot while spray painting an :blackA: on some barracks.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

The times they are a changin... I'm not opposed to movements of the weather underground, but because it focused on particular individuals rather than mass movement, it could never achieve the wide spread support necessary for radical change. However, it also seems that having leftist (even if ineffective) organizations active helps even the politics more than having none.


Would you justify your fourth premise in detail, please? It is where many people I know would disagree.

The fourth simple holds that every individual's rights, hopes, happiness, freedom, etc has the same value as every other individuals. If the Iraqi's struggle must cost them lives, rights, hopes, and happiness then ours should spend just as well as theirs. Furthermore, if our blood can buy freedom at a lower price than theirs, it seems that we should spend it, willingly. If someone rejects that human beings aren't of equal moral worth, they simply reject morality.


I don't get the thread title, you're not talking about "revolutionary" violence, you're talking about disrupting the military.

I maintain that all struggles are revolutionary struggles. Furthermore, a genuine disruption of the military requires a genuine disruption of capitalism.


Which I would agree with in theory. If I could plausibly cause a significant disruption to the American MI-C through some act of sabotage or violence, I wouldn't hesitate on any moral grounds. But I'm not going land myself in jail or get shot while spray painting an :blackA: on some barracks.
This only defers, but does not in anyway alter the argument. If you are unable to enact direct action against the military then the only question for you, if this argument convinces you, should be "how can I form the conditions for enacting effective direct action?" This also leads to revolutionary struggle.

[Yehuda Stern]

I don't get why we need a "justification" for revolutionary violence. Inasmuch as the revolution itself is justified, due to that nature of capitalism and imperialism, revolutionary violence is justified as a tool to bring forth the revolution. Only a reformist or a liar thinks can say that a revolution is possible without using violence.

[Rascolnikova]

The fourth simple holds that every individual's rights, hopes, happiness, freedom, etc has the same value as every other individuals. If the Iraqi's struggle must cost them lives, rights, hopes, and happiness then ours should spend just as well as theirs. Furthermore, if our blood can buy freedom at a lower price than theirs, it seems that we should spend it, willingly. If someone rejects that human beings aren't of equal moral worth, they simply reject morality.


That's the wrong part of the fourth premise.

IF our blood can buy freedom at a lower price than theirs; I know this may seem silly to you, but I know a lot of people who really don't think that's possible.

[JimmyJazz]

I maintain that all struggles are revolutionary struggles.

You maintain that incorrectly. Revolutionary violence is violence that gives rise to, or takes place as part of, a revolution. Violence that doesn't fit this description, isn't revolutionary. If you live in an oppressive system, and you commit violent acts which don't contribute to overthrowing it, then you've merely taken a system of systematic oppression and turned it into a system of systematic oppression + random acts of violence. And that's not even taking into account the way that individual acts of violence might alienate workers and negate the rise of a mass movement which actually could topple the oppressive system, since that leads to a whole 'nother debate about propaganda of the deed.

I can't find it just now, but I have at one point read a Che Guevara quote along the lines that, "violence which does not take us one step closer to the seizure of power is immoral." I think even propganda of the deed anarchists would agree with that.

This (http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1963/09/guerrilla-warfare.htm) might be a good read for you, not because of the specifics about guerilla warfare and latin america, but because of some of the nuggets of wisdom he gives about the valid uses of violence versus pointless/bad uses of it.

All that said, lemme just emphasize that I couldn't agree more with your first three points, and if I agreed with number four I wouldn't hesitate to endorse your plan. If it helps, I'm equally cynical about the ability of non-violent actions within the U.S. (protests, etc.) to stop American imperialism in Iraq or elsewhere. They honestly have us over a barrel. :( The legal fight against the military's attempts to recruit in public schools is the most potentially effective thing I can think of to do here in the U.S. to oppose imperialism.

[Labor Shall Rule]

It depends what kind of 'violence' is being advocated here.

The "bring the war home" theory of Adler and Dohrn was discredited - though there was an obvious identification (and there still is) with the 'super-power' as a benign force on the international chess-board, bombing targets of importance to the military-industrial complex did not make American workers know that we did not have the right to enjoy the world's resources at the expense of other's needs.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

You maintain that incorrectly. Revolutionary violence is violence that gives rise to, or takes place as part of, a revolution. Violence that doesn't fit this description, isn't revolutionary. If you live in an oppressive system, and you commit violent acts which don't contribute to overthrowing it, then you've merely taken a system of systematic oppression and turned it into a system of systematic oppression + random acts of violence. And that's not even taking into account the way that individual acts of violence might alienate workers and negate the rise of a mass movement which actually could topple the oppressive system, since that leads to a whole 'nother debate about propaganda of the deed.

I can't find it just now, but I have at one point read a Che Guevara quote along the lines that, "violence which does not take us one step closer to the seizure of power is immoral." I think even propganda of the deed anarchists would agree with that.

This might be a good read for you, not because of the specifics about guerilla warfare and latin america, but because of some of the nuggets of wisdom he gives about the valid uses of violence versus pointless/bad uses of it.

I'm sorry for not making this explicitly clear, but I would ask that you pay very careful attention to my specific wording. I said all struggles are revolutionary struggles. That does not entail everyone struggling is a revolutionary. In fact, the very nature of all struggles being revolutionary entails that at least one side is not revolutionary.

I'm familiar with the works of Che Guevara, but the situation that he confronted was fundamentally different. When he was fighting, there was still an apparent "outside" to capitalism. Moreover, there was still an ideological struggle between capitalism (oppression) and communism (liberation, however imperfect). Not between revolutionary action (communism, Marxism, anarchism) and surrender to the system (capitalism, post-Marxism, liberalism, quietism, radical rightism, etc).


All that said, lemme just emphasize that I couldn't agree more with your first three points, and if I agreed with number four I wouldn't hesitate to endorse your plan. If it helps, I'm equally cynical about the ability of non-violent actions within the U.S. (protests, etc.) to stop American imperialism in Iraq or elsewhere. They honestly have us over a barrel. :( The legal fight against the military's attempts to recruit in public schools is the most potentially effective thing I can think of to do here in the U.S. to oppose imperialism.

Again, if it's not clear that we can create a revolution now, then the problem shifts to "how can we create an organization to articulate revolution?" If one is cynical about violent revolutionary action and cynical about non-violent revolutionary action then I would contend that individual is not a revolutionary but a cynic. I'm not advocating for immediate unthinking attacks on military and government organizations, but we need to conceptually reopen both the right and the responsibility to wage revolutionary war.

Keep in mind a single organization along with a few dedicated terrorists brought the world's self-proclaimed "only super power" to its knees. Am I advocating for emulation of support of Al Qaeda? Absolutely not. Yet, rightist groups will continue to gain ground if we don't articulate the revolutionary struggle in such a way to give people hope and direction. The left will continue to be battered, beaten, and marginalized so long as we continue to assume any and every action is destined to fail.

[JimmyJazz]

I said all struggles are revolutionary struggles. That does not entail everyone struggling is a revolutionary.

I know. In fact, that's how I read it, and that's how I replied to it. I don't know what to say except read my reply again.

I don't care if a person is a Marxist or an anarchist or whatever, if her/his violence doesn't lead to a revolution (read: connect with the masses/working class), it isn't revolutionary.


Again, if it's not clear that we can create a revolution now, then the problem shifts to "how can we create an organization to articulate revolution?" If one is cynical about violent revolutionary action and cynical about non-violent revolutionary action then I would contend that individual is not a revolutionary but a cynic.

Yes, a cynic...or an organizer, who realizes that revolutionary violence should only take place at decisive movements, backed up by the moral support of the masses consciously acting against the ruling class. We are not at one of those decisive moments, and unless there is some sort of crisis, we are not even close to one. So the appropriate actions to take at the moment are organizing and raising consciousness. Please don't worry about my willingness to unleash revolutionary violence at some decisive moment in the future; I'll be perfectly willing to do so then.


Keep in mind a single organization along with a few dedicated terrorists brought the world's self-proclaimed "only super power" to its knees. Am I advocating for emulation of support of Al Qaeda? Absolutely not. Yet, rightist groups will continue to gain ground if we don't articulate the revolutionary struggle in such a way to give people hope and direction.

Please tell me you're not serious.

Al Qaeda's attacks have allowed the U.S. to expand it's imperial reach, and the U.S. gov't to increase its domestic repression, to levels not seen since the height of the cold war.