political violence (2 Viewers)

[Dr Winston Umbogo]

[video=google;6805063692754011230]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6805063692754011230[/video]

 

[egg_]

I think at this point is might be useful to distinguish between violent aggression and violent defence ... it would be hard to argue that the latter is not a legitimate answer to the former, in politics and in real life

... but that, depending on your perception of violent agression, is what leads us into the murky world of the black blocs

Is there any response to violent aggression that is more ethical and/or more effective than violent defence? Hard to know, Gandhi's campaign was ethical and effective but than seems to be an exception

 

[broken arm]

Is there any response to violent aggression that is more ethical and/or more effective than violent defence?

lasers from eyes?

 

[taubstumm]

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".

absolutely, that's why i picked them. they're examples of political violence that are generally regarded by most people, more or less, as "good political violence", but which could also be regarded as foggy-liberal-idiots cherry-picking "right-on" causes to support.

or to put it another way, if the three examples given above (south africa, french resistance, spanish civil war) fit into the "0.1% of violence which is ok", what about other, similar, situations? aceh, nepal, kurdistan/turkey, palestine, basque country, sri lanka, etc.

 

[Squiggle]

I think that, at this point, it is important to remember that history is written by the victors.

That is how "terrorists" become "freedom fighters"

 

[hugh]

I think at this point is might be useful to distinguish between violent aggression and violent defence ... it would be hard to argue that the latter is not a legitimate answer to the former, in politics and in real life

... but that, depending on your perception of violent agression, is what leads us into the murky world of the black blocs

... and on a global scale, into the murky world of nations engaging in pre-emptive war: employing violent aggression as a means of defence against violence that they perceive as being planned for the future.

It's funny ... I was reading that thread on Eircore earlier about the neo-nazi thing and someone said something like "what do you want us to do, hang around until these fascist groups get properly organised, start beating people up and so on ..... then it will be too late to do anything about it". It reminded me of what Bush used to say about Iraq.

 

[potlatch]

or to put it another way, if the three examples given above (south africa, french resistance, spanish civil war) fit into the "0.1% of violence which is ok", what about other, similar, situations? aceh, nepal, kurdistan/turkey, palestine, basque country, sri lanka, etc.

I suppose I should say the understanding I had in mind for the 0.1% group is defensive political violence. But could it be argued that the provo's initial response in Derry and Belfast was a defensive response which transformed into an offensive campaign? So, maybe imperceptibly for some, an arguably defensive paramilitary became a 'legitimate' offensive armed struggle. And that's the problem, how can anyone ever police that? For others - John Hume, SDLP etc. - violence was never a response. Speaking truth to power through non-violent offensive tactics of subversion and transformation may have worked better.

Another problem with offensive political violence is that it makes it all too easy for states to reinforce its authority and free-ride crisis through subversive strategies of destabilisation. I'm thinking here of Colombia and its mess of paramilitaries, African government-elites who use disorder as a political instrument, and the Italian government's creation of the Red Brigades as a strategy to undermine the whole labour movement. That's not to say states won't attempt to construe legitimate non-violent (not very anyway) public dissent with security threats anyway, but it makes it easier. Violence often catalyses and calcifies existing power complexes.

Maybe the best way to deal with the Celtic Wolves should been to follow the state's tactic of obvious surveillance combined with engagement - you know, talking to them. All that hippie shit what ICUH8N said.

 

[Malarky]

I was reading that thread on Eircore earlier about the neo-nazi thing and someone said something like "what do you want us to do, hang around until these fascist groups get properly organised, start beating people up and so on ..... then it will be too late to do anything about it". It reminded me of what Bush used to say about Iraq.

Mm-hmm. Nice analogy. A war-mongering, falsely electected, oil-hungry leader of the world's only superpower that's allowed to police the world by force by lying about his enemies capabilities...compared to a grassroots group that believes in tackling violent fascism with the only language they recognise and respond to?

Whatever.

 

[Malarky]

I think that, at this point, it is important to remember that history is written by the victors. That is how "terrorists" become "freedom fighters"

Also, vice-versa.

 

[pete]

Mm-hmm. Nice analogy. A war-mongering, falsely electected, oil-hungry leader of the world's only superpower that's allowed to police the world by force by lying about his enemies capabilities...compared to a grassroots group that believes in tackling violent fascism with the only language they recognise and respond to?

Whatever.

and whatever your motives, getting your retaliation in first is getting your retaliation in first

 

[egg_]

Mm-hmm. Nice analogy. A war-mongering, falsely electected, oil-hungry leader of the world's only superpower that's allowed to police the world by force by lying about his enemies capabilities...compared to a grassroots group that believes in tackling violent fascism with the only language they recognise and respond to?

I think it's a good analogy. The behaviour and justifications for it are the same, just the circumstances are different

 

[egg_]

... and on a global scale, into the murky world of nations engaging in pre-emptive war: employing violent aggression as a means of defence against violence that they perceive as being planned for the future.

It's funny ... I was reading that thread on Eircore earlier about the neo-nazi thing and someone said something like "what do you want us to do, hang around until these fascist groups get properly organised, start beating people up and so on ..... then it will be too late to do anything about it". It reminded me of what Bush used to say about Iraq.

Actually, you know what Hugh, you've managed to make a good clear case against the attacks on the Celtic Wolves. I'm sure the attackers would accept that on the global scale, "pre-emptive defence" is just another name for aggression ...

 

[Lord Damian]

"pre-emptive defence" is just another name for aggression ...

the term "Orwellian" springs to mind.

"pre-emptive defense" does not involve attacking somebody first. that is INDEED aggression. there should be NO argument about this.

 

[kthozoid]

the term "Orwellian" springs to mind.

"pre-emptive defense" does not involve attacking somebody first. that is INDEED aggression. there should be NO argument about this.

capito(a?)lisation makes me nervous, suggesting as it does some form of absolutist positioning.

the very term 'pre-emptive' implies a forethought in its intent, be it aggressive or otherwise. one cannot hold that 'pre-emptiveness' universally suggests a heinous use force against an opposing ideology. the term has recently become sullied as a result of the current U.S. adventurism in the Middle East, but we would be foolish to discount pre-emptivism, if such a term exists. the very phrase 'pre-emptive defense' is rather pointless, as any reasonably defined defence must speculate on the nature of potential aggression against it in the first place. in a sense, all successful defences are/must be pre-emptive. otherwise it's a game of pure chance or brute strength.

the political violence that Tom. has queried would seem to be the consequence of fringe platforms occupying the vacuum of informed opinion or dialogue. general apathy fosters extremism upon its margins because frequently it is the only way it inspires attention amongst the masses. (i'm not suggesting that it always arrives from a coherent viewpoint however.)

it is curious that the minority of people concerned with contemporary events are pejoritavely referred to as the 'chattering classes', even by the very media that depends on them for an existance. absolute global apathy might nurture some sense of non-violence in a Homeric Lotus-eater kind of way, but such an aspiration is unsustainable. reality contradicts this anyway, so it's a moot point.

my rather amatuerish view on this is that we are not yet so wholly evolved from our primate genetic stock to competently counter violent tendencies with cogent arguments one hundred percent of the time (even 50%,,,, actually i have no idea %%%%%).

for better or worse, the general dearth of reasoning burdens society with either shrugs of the shoulder or fists in the face (or far far worse).

where was i?

 

[broken arm]

where was i?

over there. OVER THERE

 

[JohnnyRaz]

my rather amatuerish view on this is that we are not yet so wholly evolved from our primate genetic stock to competently counter violent tendencies with cogent arguments one hundred percent of the time (even 50%,,,, actually i have no idea %%%%%).

actually we havent evolved biologically since the the species emerged. theres about as much genetic difference between you and a cave man as between you and noam chomsky.
trust me, Im a biologist

 

[potlatch]

"Back off, man, I'm a scientist."

 

[JohnnyRaz]

"Back off, man, I'm a scientist."

exactly

 

[Buzzo]

The silence of the perpetrators of this violence against the Irish neo-facists is deafening. Semi-objective speculation by people who clearly don't agree with the tactic in this particular instance is not sating my appetite for shoutin and shit.

 

[snakybus]

I'm all for a bit of aggro