political violence (6 Viewers)

[taubstumm]

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.

makes sense, i suppose.

i should add that not all anarcho-type publications are like this, by a long shot. i've always liked reading worker's solidarity because it assumes that you, as a reader, are a rational human being. whereas the publications that have a lot of bricks/masks/smashing going on (although they might have articles which are very persuasive) always leave me feeling like they're insulting my intelligence - the 'tone' of the design means that there is an implicit assertion of "what do you mean, you don't like violence?" in how the publication is presented.

anyway, it's a side-issue really.

so, should people try to beat up nazis?

 

[taubstumm]

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?

yeah, i gnow what you're sane. though i don't think it's got anything to do with smarts, just with figuring out why some violence is seen as violence, and other violence is seen as 'necessary' (or even 'honourable' and 'adventurous', like mr. raz said).

 

[ICUH8N]

makes sense, i suppose.

i should add that not all anarcho-type publications are like this, by a long shot. i've always liked reading worker's solidarity because it assumes that you, as a reader, are a rational human being. whereas the publications that have a lot of bricks/masks/smashing going on (although they might have articles which are very persuasive) always leave me feeling like they're insulting my intelligence - the 'tone' of the design means that there is an implicit assertion of "what do you mean, you don't like violence?" in how the publication is presented.

anyway, it's a side-issue really.

so, should people try to beat up nazis?

(tongue-in-cheek pragmatism alert)
There's really not much point in perpetrating violence against any group, unless you have a reasonably good chance of wiping it out completely. Even then, you run the risk of being called to account for it (Germany 1945 and 1990, Chile, Argentina for instance)
It's not a useful long-term political tool, but it's a great way of appealing to an angry, or disenfranchised or incensed demographic in order to gain support in the short term, both directly, by appealing to the glamorous aspects, and indirectly by pointing to the inevitable reaction of your opponents and shouting "Violent Oppression! We must stand up for ourselves!"

 

[potlatch]

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

Yep, was thinking about this exact thing on my way into work today, after making that post. I really can't think of a single example of how war or political violence really made anything better, and all I could think of was how amazing Ghandi, Bertrand Russell and the Zapatistas are/were, as well as all the agrarian movements in Africa.

But I can't just help but think in 0.1% of cases, some kind may make sense. But you can't defend this position in any realistic sense because that .1% easily corrodes the other 99.9% as history has shown. So in the end, I'd have to say violence is unjustified, but probably have to say never justified even if this is disingenuous and unrealistic. But how else are people's and states' behaviours to change if you preserve that coven of evildoers.

Jeez I dunno.

Actually, I was watching the Discovery Channel today, there was some programme on about the greatest fighter planes in history. The only guy who didn't talk about these killing machines like they were Rimbaud or something was the F/A-18 Hornet pilot who said "kill" about a million times. "The one thing I love about this plane is when you see an enemy fighter, you know they're gonna end up dead."

 

[nlgbbbblth]

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.

Kids chucking a brick through your window / car windscreen - I call that real violence too. Do you not?

 

[taubstumm]

Kids chucking a brick through your window / car windscreen - I call that real violence too. Do you not?

yes, that's violence, absolutely, and i never meant to imply that it isn't.

brendan behan had a couple of words to say about how people thought about different types of violence, when he was being interviewed by the british pathé newsreel in the 1950s:

Interviewer: "Mr. Behan, weren't you caught in Liverpool at the age of 16 or 17 with gelignite in your pocket?"

Behan: "One thing that I object to very strongly and that's snobbery, and snobbery attaches to bombs as well as to everything else. I take it as snobbery to say that the big bombs are alright but the small bombs are all wrong."

 

[Bellatrix]

While I don't think there's any glory in smashing up a McDonalds or breaking windows when the G8 rolls into town, in the case of an ethnic (or other) minority which is being oppressed by a larger power - the Jews, the Kurds, the Palestinians etc, there is certainly an argument to be made in favour of violence as a means to a political end.

The pro-Chavez uprising in Venezuela (which was pretty violent in nature) in the wake of the 2002 coup played a large part in restoring Chavez to power. In Ireland, as we all know, the Anglo-Irish Treaty would never have happened had it not been for the guerilla War of Independence.

Even though I abhor violence and revile suicide bombers, I can see why a Palestinian would feel that it is more useful to blow oneself up in Tel Aviv than to wait for the international community to take a stand on Palestine's behalf.

If the UN was a more relevant force in international politics and did what it was established to do, there wouldn't be any justification for political violence. But it isn't and it doesn't. So what can you do?

 

[potlatch]

ZING!!!

 

[taubstumm]

I really can't think of a single example of how war or political violence really made anything better

how about:

part of the reasoning for the nazi retreat from france was due to the actions of the french resistance in being able to successfully carry out so many attacks against them.

or:

the military wing of the a.n.c., umkhonto we sizwe/spear of the nation, was formed in 1961. spear of the nation's first military leader was nelson mandela, who was promptly sent to robben island in 1962 and became an international cause celebre almost overnight.

or the international brigades in the spanish civil war?

 

[potlatch]

Very good. I'll put that in the 0.1% group

Hang on, what do people mean by political violence here? The explicit use of force for political ends, or also something more than that, like neo-liberalism? Or even, the use of force for reasons other than the immediate protection of your/citizens' existence?

 

[carbide]

i'm not a big fan of the violence in general, and the bricks/masks/smashy/fire/whatever symbolism is really offputting as a result. however...

so, should people try to beat up nazis?

is there a more constructive way of approaching neonazis? i don't think either side wants to sit down for a nice chat and consideration of the other's perspective, and while i wouldn't see it as a constructive strategy, i dunno that i have a problem with it as an expression of strong feelings - i would like the neonazis to stop existing and their ideas are abhorrent enough that i can stop seeing them as human, or at least worrying about one person inflicting pain on another.

which is very subjective and not a great answer - for a less clearly repellant group or in the reverse situation, the old brick to the back of the head wouldn't warm my heart - and my gut response bothers me a bit. interesting subject.

 

[Bellatrix]

their ideas are abhorrent enough that i can stop seeing them as human

Careful now.

 

[ICUH8N]

i'm not a big fan of the violence in general, and the bricks/masks/smashy/fire/whatever symbolism is really offputting as a result. however...



is there a more constructive way of approaching neonazis? i don't think either side wants to sit down for a nice chat and consideration of the other's perspective, and while i wouldn't see it as a constructive strategy, i dunno that i have a problem with it as an expression of strong feelings - i would like the neonazis to stop existing and their ideas are abhorrent enough that i can stop seeing them as human, or at least worrying about one person inflicting pain on another.

which is very subjective and not a great answer - for a less clearly repellant group or in the reverse situation, the old brick to the back of the head wouldn't warm my heart - and my gut response bothers me a bit. interesting subject.

I have several comments about neo-nazis (of the German variety, it mostly applies to the Irish ones, too)

1. Your gut reaction is normal, there's no reason to feel bad about it. Not acting on one's immediate impulse to try and kick their teeth in is the key here.
2. It is vitally important, in my opinion, that we make every effort not to view these people as crazies, let alone barely human. As bellatrix said, that's more or less at the core of what they believe (or rather, their predecessors believed)
3. It's important to understand their motivations. Some of these people have a strong, detailed ideology, but most do not; they come from underprivileged backgrounds, are not particularly well-educated, often live in or near immigrant communities (where they may have been subject to racism themselves) they're often long-term unemployed. Ideology is not these people's core motivation, someone has appealed to their sense of frustration, exploited their need for a purpose, given them something to belong to, something that they see as honourable in a twisted way. In my opinion, national pride of any sort is a bad thing, because it's so easily twisted into hatred of what is perceived to be "other"
Being angry with these people is pointless, it's not going to do you any good; anger and hatred fuels their isolation, makes them even more likely to be radicalised, makes them feel as if they have no choice, that no-one understands them, makes them go from marching to throwing stones to burning down houses to kicking people to death on the street.

We have to treat them as humans, we have to understand why they feel the way they feel, we have engage with them critically on a level which they can understand, we have to keep reaching out to them and be the ones who make the effort, in the face of their jeering, and we have to continue to make it clear as a society, that what they are doing is unacceptable, and that there is an alternative.

 

[broken arm]

which is very subjective and not a great answer - for a less clearly repellant group or in the reverse situation, the old brick to the back of the head wouldn't warm my heart - and my gut response bothers me a bit. interesting subject.

if a (neo-)nazi beat the shit out of you would you goose-step your way home?

 

[carbide]

Careful now.

right. could have been better phrased but the problem's really at the thinking stage.

 

[Lord Damian]

every once in a while i think Gandhi had a bullshit idea...peaceful resistance? these cocksuckers don't have the same ethics as the rest of us do. playing the non-violent protest card weakens yr position. that's a fact.

and then i wake up in a land of beer and sunshine.

edit: i think i may go and read the thread now.

 

[carbide]

I have several comments about neo-nazis (of the German variety, it mostly applies to the Irish ones, too)

...

Being angry with these people is pointless, it's not going to do you any good; anger and hatred fuels their isolation, makes them even more likely to be radicalised, makes them feel as if they have no choice, that no-one understands them, makes them go from marching to throwing stones to burning down houses to kicking people to death on the street.

We have to treat them as humans, we have to understand why they feel the way they feel, we have engage with them critically on a level which they can understand, we have to keep reaching out to them and be the ones who make the effort, in the face of their jeering, and we have to continue to make it clear as a society, that what they are doing is unacceptable, and that there is an alternative.

i don't disagree at all. i think (and i kinda wish i hadn't said anything, because it's normally a fleeting thought overruled by more constructive ones) that the thing for me is that trying to do this - to treat people as humans and understand and engage and make the effort - is really fucking exhausting when you're doing it on a lot of fronts at once.

in some ways, with neonazis it should be easier because they are never in the majority - personally, a lot of my convinctions are totally opposed to society's and swimming against the tide constantly is exhausting, only occasionally exhilarating - and i think it comes down to just getting pissed off enough with fighting idealogically and wanting to punch someone. i know dialogue is a million times more useful.

i hope i don't sound like i'm backpedalling furiously, more that my original post was off the top of my head and here, not knowing a lot of people in real life (and probably not identified by those that i do), i worry a lot that what i said out of context sounds stupid and reactionary. i've actually never beaten anyone up, and i don't really go around cheering when anyone else does, more that i find myself taking a blind eye to this case usually.

i'd really like to hear from the perspective of someone who unreservedly defends beating up neonazis, too.

 

[carbide]

if a (neo-)nazi beat the shit out of you would you goose-step your way home?

no, but clearly my ideas are Right and theirs are Wrong, so it's different.

 

[JohnnyRaz]

how about:

part of the reasoning for the nazi retreat from france was due to the actions of the french resistance in being able to successfully carry out so many attacks against them.

or:

the military wing of the a.n.c., umkhonto we sizwe/spear of the nation, was formed in 1961. spear of the nation's first military leader was nelson mandela, who was promptly sent to robben island in 1962 and became an international cause celebre almost overnight.

or the international brigades in the spanish civil war?

ok in south africa,
however the extent of the nazi reprisals to resistance attacks in France still makes some historians/commentators question whether it was worth it; the arriaval of huge, well equiped allied armies into france arguably had a lot more to do with the liberation of france than the actions of the resistance.
and the international brigades, although motivated by noble and admirable intentions, did nothing but delay the collapse of the republic.

Im not questioning the justification of the use of violence in these cases, just whether it was in any way effectual.

 

[hugh]

All the examples quoted sound to me like situations where the violence is being employed in order to bring about a change in circumstances that the "quotee" (is that a word?) approves of. In other words "I disapprove of the apartheid regime in S Africa/the nazi occupation of France/the fascist takover of Spain and I believe the violence that was used to oppose it was justified".

(I know it would also be argued that all those regimes or situations were imposed against the will of the people concerned and hence they had no option but to use violence to oppose them).

But, are there situations where people would approve of political violence being used in order to bring about a change of circumstances that they don't agree with?

(As an aside .. its cool to see a thread on the politics board where people are actually saying what they think about things ... rather than quoting URLS that concur with the way they think).