political violence (3 Viewers)

[W.]

"Refused to exclude violence as a tactic" is radically different to "brought about by violent protest/revolution".

How so?

 

[taubstumm]

The cover was intentionally putting forward a violent aesthetic as a way to grab attention, i feel it served a useful purpose as militant resistance can be very inspiring and beautiful. The freesheet was aimed more or less at people already sympathetic to anarchist ideas and was distributed at gigs, meetings and within social circles. The second issue had no violent imagery that i can think of.

right, well, i'd disagree with you, obviously

 

[potlatch]

militant resistance can be very inspiring and beautiful

Beautiful, or a deadly buzz?

If your average Insurrection reader is going to read it anyway, why grab attention using violent imagery, if it's not what you're actually saying? Saying violence is inspiring means it's OK. So when is it OK and when isn't it?

Jeez, where's the love?

 

[W.]

Saying violence is inspiring means it's OK. So when is it OK and when isn't it?

I believe violence against the state (who hold a monopoly on violence anyway) is justifiable. If you are involved in a struggle against the state and capitalism it is at times necessary mainly as a means of defense when the state sends it's forces in to break a movement. The force of a revolution is always social though and not military, you can't substitute violence for the self-activity of the working class (well you can but it's not going to get you anywhere) but there are times in struggle when violent acts are legitimate.

 

[taubstumm]

I believe violence against the state (who hold a monopoly on violence anyway) is justifiable. If you are involved in a struggle against the state and capitalism it is at times necessary mainly as a means of defense when the state sends it's forces in to break a movement. The force of a revolution is always social though and not military, you can't substitute violence for the self-activity of the working class (well you can but it's not going to get you anywhere) but there are times in struggle when violent acts are legitimate.

that's irrelevant to the point being made, which wasn't about violence itself, but the glorification of it.

 

[W.]

that's irrelevant to the point being made, which wasn't about violence itself, but the glorification of it.

I don't view it as glorification, when we use these images we use them as images which represent our struggle a struggle which of course has a violent element. Fighting back against the state is an empowering thing, these images represent that for me. When I see my greek comrades breaking through a line of cops it inspires me, not necessarily to violence but it lets me know that the struggle against the state and capital is still out there. I still know that violence in itself is not nearly enough to build a political movement but that's why there are so many other elements to politcal organising which are less sexy and less focussed upon.

 

[taubstumm]

you seem to be arguing from your conclusions back to your evidence, rather than the other way around.

or...

if it's ok for you to have images of smashy-smashy in your publications because it's inspiring and you don't view it as glorification, is it ok for nazis to have images of smashy-smashy in their publications because it's inspiring and they don't view it as glorification?

 

[W.]

Nazi's can have whatever they want in their publications it makes no difference to me, I surprisingly don't get off on their images of violence because the ideology behind it disgusts me.

 

[Squiggle]

At what point did our society decide that 'pre-emptive' violence (e.g. the war on terrorism) was the best option?

In any political situation it might be necessary to resort to violence, but surely it should be a last resort - not an opening bid.

Yes, most social change has come about by groups that were willing to resort to violence - but they didn't start their campaign by wading straight in. Years, often decades, of frustration and violence perpetrated against them eventually drove them to that extreme... that is what violence, of any kind, is - an extreme. It shouldn't be considered a normal part of life, or a normal reaction to a differing social, political or religious viewpoint.

 

[W.]

Yes, most social change has come about by groups that were willing to resort to violence - but they didn't start their campaign by wading straight in. Years, often decades, of frustration and violence perpetrated against them eventually drove them to that extreme... that is what violence, of any kind, is - an extreme. It shouldn't be considered a normal part of life, or a normal reaction to a differing social, political or religious viewpoint.

I agree.

What do people make of the battle of the bogside? Was there a non-violent alternative to fighting against the RUC who catholics felt were vitcimising their communities?

 

[potlatch]

Squiggle, I'd say various governments have decided to push for pre-emptive violence as the norm for reasons of state and wealth. As a discourse to secure resources and power.

War has become more like policing where constant interventions - pre-emptive and reactive - maintain and generate orders.

If this situation becomes the norm everywhere, violence is no longer an exception.

Presumably tactics of violent rebellion would change in relation to this, and we're back into open-ended low-scale terrorist violence with no strategic goal. Al Qaeda (or whoever) are, uh, vanguards in this.

Violence not only becomes divisive, but counter-productive because it doesn't build beyond those involved in the actions, it makes it difficult for revolutionary orders to get past violence as a self-justifying central value. I know the justification of violence against the state is to create possibilities of new social realities, but I don't trust the power of violence to positively create new social realities within existing systems - i.e. it's better to peacably oppose and speak to power, subvert and transform situations than to negate the whole system, because not everyone will be behind you on that. So then you're into the problem of heavily armed elites securing power for themselves.

This is a Eurocentric POV, but is the case in non-Western states, too. Conflict in Africa has made things worse although I'm sure the ethnic groupings felt themselves entirely justified on their own terms. But it hasn't achieved anything for most of the continent's people. The countries that are succeeding are those that have cohesive social movements based on labour, agrarian, gender, geographic commonalities.

 

[Squiggle]

Squiggle, I'd say various governments have decided to push for pre-emptive violence as the norm for reasons of state and wealth. As a discourse to secure resources and power.

War has become more like policing where constant interventions - pre-emptive and reactive - maintain and generate orders.

If this situation becomes the norm everywhere, violence is no longer an exception.quote]

I guess this is kinda where I was going with my questions. If individual nations are allowed to behave in a totalitarian way, to agressively police situations that are, territorially (sp?), none of their business, then where is the line drawn?

How long before they try for global dictatorship? The danger is that the normalisation of violence as a legitimate response is coming from all levels of the political and social scale - from the individual right up to the global level.

If, as an individual, I take the stance that it is acceptable for me to beat up someone who has wronged me in some way (or who I think might) then I cannot, ligitimately, take the opposite stance against police brutality or similar forms of violence.

Likewise, if a Government, as some are currently doing, sets itself up as a global bully, can they legitimately expect and enforce better behaviour from their own subjects?

 

[egg_]

yes, but some revolutionaries don't have the option of inventing a corn-thresher to achieve their objectives, the industrial and agriculutural revolutions are a very different thing to what is being discussed.

Ay I know I know
What I'm trying to get at though, sorry for being obscure, is that real fundamental social change has very often not been deliberate. Feudalism wasn't overthrown, it just died out. The colonial powers left Africa for a variety of reasons, not because they were driven out. It's just plain wrong to assert that social change is mostly brought about by violent struggle

 

[snakybus]

you guys all seem to have made an assumption: violence is wrong

like some of you are saying that it's wrong, but it's okay if it's a way of getting around things and preventing greater violence

where does this assumption come from?

why not question that very assumption?

is there a difference between violence and aggression?

 

[potlatch]

'Cos it hurts.

 

[Squiggle]

you guys all seem to have made an assumption: violence is wrong

like some of you are saying that it's wrong, but it's okay if it's a way of getting around things and preventing greater violence

where does this assumption come from?

why not question that very assumption?

is there a difference between violence and aggression?

Have you actually looked at the definition of violence? Of course it is wrong!!

Sometimes physical force may be the only option (other than dying), but that is self (or national) defence - not violence.

So, I guess that the question you want to be asking is whether "political violence" is a misnomer for justifiable force being used in an effort to bring about a social or political change.




Violence n.
Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

Aggression
n 1: a disposition to behave aggressively 2: a feeling of hostility that arouses thoughts of attack [syn: aggressiveness] 3: violent action that is hostile and usually unprovoked [syn: hostility] 4: the act of initiating hostilities 5: deliberately unfriendly behavior

 

[JohnnyRaz]

Im bored with this thread.....

I reckon, like so basically, we should, like, nuke north korea!

Have you actually looked at the definition of violence? Of course it is wrong!!

Sometimes physical force may be the only option (other than dying), but that is self (or national) defence - not violence.

So, I guess that the question you want to be asking is whether "political violence" is a misnomer for justifiable force being used in an effort to bring about a social or political change.




Violence n.
Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

Aggression
n 1: a disposition to behave aggressively 2: a feeling of hostility that arouses thoughts of attack [syn: aggressiveness] 3: violent action that is hostile and usually unprovoked [syn: hostility] 4: the act of initiating hostilities 5: deliberately unfriendly behavior

 

[W.]

Ay I know I know
What I'm trying to get at though, sorry for being obscure, is that real fundamental social change has very often not been deliberate. Feudalism wasn't overthrown, it just died out. The colonial powers left Africa for a variety of reasons, not because they were driven out. It's just plain wrong to assert that social change is mostly brought about by violent struggle

Positive and necessary social change is mostly brought about by struggles which have had to include violent means is what i was saying. Feudalism gave way to capitalism which wasn't that radical a social change. Colonial powers leaving africa after they bled it dry isn't an argument for anything except inertia maybe. Are we to wait around until things get better on their own?

 

[snakybus]

Have you actually looked at the definition of violence? Of course it is wrong!!

No, there's no "of course" about it. That's what this thread is all about.

 

[W.]

Dictionary definitions don't really have any place in a discussion like this. Here's one for you, friend of mine takes an axe and smashes the nosecone of a us military plane down in shannon. He's a christian and writes up the action as non-violent direct action. Can you non-violently smash up a plane?