political violence (7 Viewers)

[seaners]

There is a massive qualitative difference in the autonomy of the people taking the actions. ie the people taking it upon themselves to physically confront fascists are acting as individuals (sometimes acting as part of a non-hierarchical umbrella group), with no authority vested in themselves from a higher power or delegating that power and authority to others further down the chain of command. Compare this with a war-mongering president who sits in a luxurious office several continents away from the battlefield and sends orders to soldiers he has never met and probably never will meet to go and kill other people who in turn they have never met or had any reason to personally assault just because they have been told to follow orders in some strategy that they had no imput into. Comparing the two is completely disingenuous imho.
the moralising is weird. Deciding when something is absolutely RIGHT or absolutely WRONG just leads to people being stuck in ideologies and self-righteousness. Every single action and interaction in life is unique and should be treated as such. Obviously for the sake of discussion we need to generalise situations, but it seems like people just want to find a right way of doing things and apply that across the board regardless of the consequences, kind of like christians, liberals, communists, platformists and all those other groups I love.
As regards bricks in the faces of cops as propaganda. It depends on who you're trying to impress. If you're trying to appeal to middle-class values (sorry, hate this classist shite...) then it's not very effective, if you're trying to appeal to disaffected youth who get beaten up by the cops every weekend it might well be of some interest to them. Its all tactics. Some people might even take the opinion that they're not propagandising at all, simply reflecting the way that they feel and act, and letting other people make their own mind up as opposed to trying to convince them of the rightness of their viewpoints.
Nazis - down with that sort of thing

 

[egg_]

in a sense, all successful defences are/must be pre-emptive. otherwise it's a game of pure chance or brute strength.

All violence is a game of brute strength, isn't it?

 

[potlatch]

I hate to sound like a mental right-winger here, but are you setting up a "moral equivalence" between the AFA group and the Celtic Wolves?

Nazis (allegedly) beating up people they don't like. Anarchists beating up Nazis. Aren't both "reflecting the way they feel"? Using force to "convince [the other] of the rightness of their viewpoints"?

You're saying, "tactically", this can be OK. What are your criteria for judging if it's OK?

 

[egg_]

There is a massive qualitative difference in the autonomy of the people taking the actions ...

Obviously there's a difference between doing something yourself and telling someone else to do it, but that doesn't really change the ethical implications of pre-emptive strikes as far as I can see

 

[mazzyianne]

Two quick points, actually this one goes back to a while ago. I wouldn't consider smashing cars, windows etc. as violence in the same way as war or beating someone up etc. I think it's bizarre to compare them, property destruction it is, violence it aint.
(I agree with the point about putting it on literature tho)

Two, i think there are way more than 0.01% of cases in which the violence has been justified, like Tom was saying there's loads of examples, like every brutal dicatorship ever. Nicaragua, Tanzania, Cuba, lots n lots. It's easy to say that violence is wrong but I'm reading a lot about the revolution in Nicaragua at the moment and fucking hell, if you were living under that kind of brutality there would be no question of negotiation.

 

[Corey]

I cant believe i have to go back to work now.

Malice. You mean malice. All violence is fuelled by some form of malicious intent; be it 'justified' in the persons mind or simply reactionary. It's still violence though. And..uh, malice, i guess.

 

[potlatch]

Tanzania

Ah, here, Tanzania isn't a brutal dictatorship. Not the most liberal place, mind. But I don't think it was ever a 'brutal dictatorship'. Very corrupt, yes. Run by (a fairly inclusive) single party, yes. An authoritarian, proto-developmental state, yes. Low scale violence and a few deaths around election time in Zanzibar, yes. Multi-party elections, yes. A growing free press, yes.

Violent revolution as a solution to poverty in one of the region's only stable states where only the poorest of the poor will suffer? No fucking way.

Doesn't mislabelling situations pre-determine a moral outlook and course of action, or something?

 

[hugh]

Yeah .... what Potlatch said .... Tanzania??!! Are you sure you are not getting mixed up with somewhere else?

Though Cuba is a pretty interesting one and get's back to the point I was trying to make about people being willing to support violence if it's a cause they agree with. I'd guess many people here would say the Cuban revolution in 1959 or whenever was justified as it was overthrowing a corrupt system and government etc. But who would support the use of violence against the current regime? Its arguably more oppressive and disastrous for the people than Batista's ever was ...

 

[hugh]

... Comparing the two is completely disingenuous imho.
the moralising is weird.

Disingenuous? Maybe a little bit yeah ...

Moralising? Dunno where you're getting that from ...

 

[taubstumm]

Its arguably more oppressive and disastrous for the people than Batista's ever was ...

this is pretty much a side-issue, but...

arguably?

i'd argue it.

castro's cuba is an authoritarian one-party state which has zero free press, very little democracy, much repression, various human rights abuses and significant quelling of dissent.

it also has free universal healthcare, 98%+ literacy, active afforts to combat gender discrimination, and has survived almost half a century of deliberate and ongoing efforts to destroy it.

it's not some socialist paradise. it's not much fun. but given a hypothetical choice to live under batista and to live under castro, i reckon most people know which they'd choose.

i realise that this has pretty much nothing to do with the point you were making, but... well... um... i just wanted to say that.

 

[nlgbbbblth]

My violence is a dream
A ’real dream’
A skinny arm
A crush on living sin
My violence
Is a sleeping head
Nodding out to rising bliss
I left home for experience
Carved ’suk for honesty’ on my chest
My violence is the number
Coming out of prayer
Find it in the father
Find it in a girl

There’s a thing in my memory
Hoilding on for dear life
With a feeling of secrets
Beating up under my flesh
My tongue is tied
I’m sleeping nights awake
Tom violence is a dream
Coming out of a girl

 

[taubstumm]

heheheheheh

yeah, they wrote that for me

all about the violence, i am

My violence is a dream
A ’real dream’
A skinny arm
A crush on living sin
My violence
Is a sleeping head
Nodding out to rising bliss
I left home for experience
Carved ’suk for honesty’ on my chest
My violence is the number
Coming out of prayer
Find it in the father
Find it in a girl

There’s a thing in my memory
Hoilding on for dear life
With a feeling of secrets
Beating up under my flesh
My tongue is tied
I’m sleeping nights awake
Tom violence is a dream
Coming out of a girl

 

[W.]

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.

Not to be a pedant, but which magazines specifically? Off the top of my head all I can think of are ATTACK and CLASS WAR, nearly everyone else on the left/anarcho side of things shys away from over-use of violent imagery especially of the window smashing type. Of course sometimes the violent imagery is relevent but even still I can't help but think this is more of a preconceived notion about the left rather than an actual fact.

 

[W.]

kind of like christians, liberals, communists, platformists and all those other groups I love.

Ah boss, I wouldn't include the platform in there, what would makno say! Tactical and theoretical unity as a way to build revolutionary struggle (from scratch) is not the same as applying some sort of generalised morals to everything, it's more a method of organising.

 

[aoboa]

Is it true to say that the majority of MAJOR political and social change pre-20th century was brought about by violent protest/revolution?

 

[egg_]

Is it true to say that the majority of MAJOR political and social change pre-20th century was brought about by violent protest/revolution?

How about the Industrial Revolution and Agricultural Revolutions? Both peaceful, pretty much.

 

[egg_]

not the same as applying some sort of generalised morals to everything

Em ... do anarchists have a problem with morality?

 

[aoboa]

I'm just trying to understand why violent opposition/protest/revolution is so frowned upon when it has proved to be a very effective method.
In fact, why people (in general) shy away from protest of any kind.

I guess what I'm getting at is whether there has been over the last 150 years a gradual conditioning of people to avoid protest or to at least follow the guidelines set out for protest as set out by the authorities.

 

[aoboa]

How about the Industrial Revolution and Agricultural Revolutions? Both peaceful, pretty much.

Aside from all the people who lost hands, feet, heads in looms, threshing machines etc

 

[hugh]

this is pretty much a side-issue, but...

arguably?

i'd argue it.

Well, when I say "arguably", I mean it can be legitimately argued either way.

You say "free universal healthcare" - I say "cubans can't live on a doctors salary anymore, are opting to become tourist guides instead, and therefore the entire system is on the brink of collapse".

You say "98%+ literacy" - I say "what's the point in that if no-one can afford to buy a book and the only ones on sale anyway are Hemingway novels and state-published paeons to the glories of socialism".

i realise that this has pretty much nothing to do with the point you were making, but... well... um... i just wanted to say that.

Exactly. The point is - it's seems to me that the Cuban people have as little say these days in how their country and society is run, as they did pre-revolution, and are subject to similar levels of oppression. So, I'm just curious to know that if people agree that the Cuban revolution was a good example of justified politcal violence/rebellion, would they feel that a hypothetical contemporary revolution in Cuba would be equally justified? And if not, why not?