political violence (7 Viewers)

[taubstumm]

this thread is somewhat inspired by the anarchists-attack-nazis thread in eirecore, and also - [misty-eyed faraway look] - somewhat inspired by the turbulent history of our nation.

when is political violence justifiable?
when is political violence useful?

i'm genuinely curious to hear a couple of anarchist takes on it (personal ones - not giving links to position papers and the like, please). i'm also curious to hear everyone else's takes on it.

(also, please remember: politeness costs you nothing. sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. and logical reasoning is a good thing.)

 

[Squiggle]

I'm all for passive resistance and taking the higher ground.

Not a big fan of violence - as someone with a very nasty temper I realised a long time ago that letting it get the better of me did me more damage in the long run than controling it.

Nowdays I try to find a non-violent, peaceful solution to a situation - if I can't I just try to let it go.

Life is so much more peaceful and full of :heart: and

 

[ITalkShite]

I'm all for passive resistance and taking the higher ground.

Not a big fan of violence - as someone with a very nasty temper I realised a long time ago that letting it get the better of me did me more damage in the long run than controling it.

Nowdays I try to find a non-violent, peaceful solution to a situation - if I can't I just try to let it go.

Life is so much more peaceful and full of :heart: and

Like your teacher told you before the Leaving Cert: Always read the question

 

[Squiggle]

i'm also curious to hear everyone else's takes on it.

(also, please remember: politeness costs you nothing. sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. and logical reasoning is a good thing.)

I fit into "everyone else's takes on it." I don't agree with political violence.

I think it stems from people, individuals and groups, collectively losing their temper in frustrating circumstances, or deliberately working themselves up into a frenzy as a social statment.

Either way it shows lack of control and, I believe, lessens the perceived validity of their argument or viewpoint.

 

[It Will Never Last]

*everyone's elses take on it*


I'll never write it off as a legitimate tactic, but I can't think of any reason why it would be justified or useful in our current state.

 

[oh shit]

*everyone's elses take on it*


I'll never write it off as a legitimate tactic, but I can't think of any reason why it would be justified or useful in our current state.

you can't be referring to 'our current state' as in the centralised authority which claims to have a legitimate claim to a monopoly over the use of political violence?

all politics is violent because all politics based upon truth-claims conceal a violence in the inherent oppression of the Other, violence in politics is unavoidable. the only question is the direction it is applied in.

 

[It Will Never Last]

you can't be referring to 'our current state' as in the centralised authority which claims to have a legitimate claim to a monopoly over the use of political violence?

all politics is violent because all politics based upon truth-claims conceal a violence in the inherent oppression of the Other, violence in politics is unavoidable. the only question is the direction it is applied in.

I'm obviously not as learned as yoself, so here in laymen's terms (i.e. mine) is what I think.

When I refer to political violence I mean violence perpetrated by anyone but the State. By current state I mean current state of affairs, i.e. I can't see any justifiable reason for an individual or group to use violence as a political tactic as things currently stand.

 

[billygannon]

all politics is violent because all politics based upon truth-claims conceal a violence in the inherent oppression of the Other, violence in politics is unavoidable. the only question is the direction it is applied in.

I'm going to disagree with you on this.

 

[Janer]

I'm all for passive resistance and taking the higher ground.

Not a big fan of violence - as someone with a very nasty temper I realised a long time ago that letting it get the better of me did me more damage in the long run than controling it.

Nowdays I try to find a non-violent, peaceful solution to a situation - if I can't I just try to let it go.

Life is so much more peaceful and full of :heart: and

What ur trying to say is that u don't break ur Weetabix up now........

 

[Squiggle]

What ur trying to say is that u don't break ur Weetabix up now........

EXACTLY!!! Had to give up eating the stuff

Actually, bit more serious than that. I previously inflicted, on myself and others, a number of bone breakages in violent outbursts.

 

[taubstumm]

When I refer to political violence I mean violence perpetrated by anyone but the State.

why?

why is political violence by the state not political violence?

 

[ICUH8N]

why?

why is [strike]political[/strike] violence by the state not political violence?

Some most certainly is. In fact, there is a class of crimes perpetrated by a state against its citizens which is explicitly defined as "politically motivated crime" by certain judiciaries (notably the one in which Tom. currently resides)

For instance, using your police force to beat them up when they protest against you, and call for the wall to be dismantled.

 

[taubstumm]

Some most certainly is.

..

Homer: Seven!
Lisa: No, Dad, it's a rhetorical question.
Homer: Rhetorical, eh?..... Eight!

 

[ICUH8N]

Oh yeah, it was more in response to trl. I know you know. Do you know that I know you know?

 

[potlatch]

Ha, oh shit took the words out of my mouth. There are different forms of violence. Violent confrontation is one form, another is a 'normal' state of affairs which is actually based on structural violence of some kind or other.

You could say, we're... entering into a constant state of war right now where politics is the continuation of war by other means.

While I'd never say violent rebellion is never on, I think it has to be used only in an exceptional state of affairs when all other forms of resistance have failed (and that non-violent resistance has been attempted systemically and through mondo democratic processes (through the state or not). That's to say: it's nearly always never justified but more justified in certain contexts than others. Also that people should think harder - more imaginative, indirect solutions are probably usually more effective than direct (violent) ones.

Most people just get impatient or have ulterior motives.

I dunno if that makes sense or someone's gonna open a can o' whoop-ass on me.

 

[JohnnyRaz]

I dunno if that makes sense or someone's gonna open a can o' whoop-ass on me.

Im feeling too brain dead to get into this today, so Im going to post a picture of a tank and ghandi to cover both sides of the argument

 

[Bellatrix]

..

You must spread some rough justice around before you beat up tom. again.

 

[taubstumm]

i'd take the anarcho side on the idea of the state - all states are violent.

i remember in the run-up to the invasion of iraq, there was a radio interview i heard where some guy was talking about how the american army were the nicest bunch of dudes you could ever hope to meet, and another guy butted in and said something along the lines of: "why are you saying that? it can't be true: an army is nothing but an instrument for the organised application of violence."

that line - "an instrument for the organised application of violence" - was something that was so staggeringly obvious, and yet at the same time so rarely admitted, that i actually stopped and wrote it down.

so often, discussion about violence rotates around the loo-la actions of kids with bricks, whereas the real violence - the existence, in the midst of all states, of an army, an instrument for the organised application of violence, is just ignored.

however...

having said all that...

what i'm really getting at is the other side of the coin.

why, for example, do so many lefty/anarcho-type publications insist on including images of violence, and of violent confrontation, in their publications? i'd be curious to hear from a few of them about the reasons for that. as far as i can see, it has to be counter-productive (what better way to alienate potential sympathisers is there than to include pictures of people smashing windows?), yet they keep on doing it, so there must be some logic to it.

 

[JohnnyRaz]

however...

having said all that...

what i'm really getting at is the other side of the coin.

why, for example, do so many lefty/anarcho-type publications insist on including images of violence, and of violent confrontation, in their publications? i'd be curious to hear from a few of them about the reasons for that. as far as i can see, it has to be counter-productive (what better way to alienate potential sympathisers is there than to include pictures of people smashing windows?), yet they keep on doing it, so there must be some logic to it.

I think its more about apealling to their core demographic; your not going to attract the disgruntled with carefully worded articles on how your policies will be employed in such a way as to cause the least social disruption possible. Bricks/riots are exciting and dynamic.
Much in the same way governments/kingdoms/states have always tried to invest the military with notions of honour, adventure and duty, even when its theve generally been the insturment of colonial expansion/general agressesion or at best an necessary evil to gaurd against the former.

(I apparently woke up at 1410)

 

[It Will Never Last]

Oh yeah, it was more in response to trl. I know you know. Do you know that I know you know?

I've accepted yis all got more smarts on this than me. I've always associated the term "political violence" (and assumed the question was asked with that in mind) as violence by actors other than the state. That's just how I've seen it, gnome sane?

[SIZE=-1]I wouldn't mind gettin' my Grade 10... Then I could talk to people better. Maybe then I'll understand what people are sayin' all the time - right now I don't. But, the other thing is, it's a catch-23 situation because I got somethin' fuckin' around with my dope plants. Smokes, lets go...[/SIZE]