political violence (2 Viewers)

[JohnnyRaz]

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.
.

i guess part of that reason is that although violent revolutions/protest may have ocassionaly proved effective in achieving their short term aims the long term results went exactly as promised

 

[mazzyianne]

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?

I was talking about their 25 year struggle for independence, TANU and all that, is a colonial power not a brutal dictatorship?
They only got independence in 1961 I think and it took armed struggle to get it.
right? am I wrong... I've been reading too much this year but I think I'm not getting mixed up...

 

[potlatch]

Oh, you mean Tanganyika. Don't think so, TANU was an organised nationalist movement led by Julius Nyerere that capitalised on the disintegration of the British empire to win independence.

 

[mazzyianne]

Oh, you mean Tanganyika. Don't think so, TANU was an organised nationalist movement led by Julius Nyerere that capitalised on the disintegration of the British empire to win independence.

I'm pretty sure there was armed struggle. Also now that I think of it, in Zimbabwe for sure during their struggle for independence, most African countries had some armed struggle at that time, the Congo for sure too...
Is armed struggle ok in those cases?

My point remains (although thanks for trying to sully my good name and detract from it) that it's all well and good to sit here and condemn violence when you dont have to suffer violent repression.

 

[hugh]

I'm pretty sure there was armed struggle. Also now that I think of it, in Zimbabwe for sure during their struggle for independence, most African countries had some armed struggle at that time, the Congo for sure too...
Is armed struggle ok in those cases?

Most African countries achieved independence with reasonably little armed struggle. Zimbabwe yes. Congo kinda slid into independence and then there was a coup right afterwards when Mobutu took over. But in many cases .... the colonials just upped and left, and all around the same time.

My point remains (although thanks for trying to sully my good name and detract from it) that it's all well and good to sit here and condemn violence when you dont have to suffer violent repression.

Sure.

 

[W.]

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

Some of our most important rights were won through campaigns that refused to exclude violence as a tactic; womens right to vote, 8hour day/40 hour week, equal rights for black people (america) and how widespread violence against the state and in defence from the state was in the 60's,70's and 80's before this "end of history" idea crept in.

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

Not exactly revolutions in the strict sense of the word.

 

[billygannon]

Not exactly revolutions in the strict sense of the word.

Why not?

 

[W.]

Why not?

Because they were just changes in the methods of production (which obviously had cultural and social fallout) which came about as a result of new technology, not a revolution in the sense of one group of people rising up to overthrow power or attain more rights etc. which is the kind that is relevent to what's being discussed.

 

[taubstumm]

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

you could probably broaden that to "all significant political change involves violence" - that seems a reasonable rule of thumb. it doesn't necessarily justify the violence involved in each case, but it makes no sense to ignore the obvious.

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

the use of the term "industrial revolution" was not contemporary, and was not used by those involved - it was only used subsequently by historians to describe the significant social and economic upheaval of the time. in a sense, it was invented as historiographic shorthand for referring to certain shared characteristics of a particular era (i.e. the economic and social characteristics of the late 18th and early 19th century, predominantly in britain)

that said, though, the industrial revolution did result in significant political violence; the most well-known instances of that now are the luddites, but they were by no means the only ones.

 

[snakybus]

I reckon I could kick any of your asses in a fight

I'm wiry

 

[egg_]

Not exactly revolutions in the strict sense of the word.

Well obviously
But they're examples of enormous social and political changes brought about mainly by technological change, and not violence (in response to aoboa's post)

 

[taubstumm]

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.

i don't know which ones. it was more of a general observation. it always struck me as being not only immature, but also (if you're a reader who generaslly agrees with the arguments of the publication) tactically naive. why should these people go around insulting the intelligence of their audience with pictures of smashy-smashy? seems like one surefire way to drive away potential sympathisers and undermine the purpose of the publication's existence.

(though now that i think of it, did you not do a freesheet a while ago that had a fair share of images of balaclavaed youths flinging bins and the like? hoist by your own petard, etc)

 

[aoboa]

Well obviously
But they're examples of enormous social and political changes brought about mainly by technological change, and not violence (in response to aoboa's post)

They were conscious social upheavals though. More a change in life/work.style brought about by technological advances.

 

[W.]

i don't know which ones. it was more of a general observation. it always struck me as being not only immature, but also (if you're a reader who generaslly agrees with the arguments of the publication) tactically naive. why should these people go around insulting the intelligence of their audience with pictures of smashy-smashy? seems like one surefire way to drive away potential sympathisers and undermine the purpose of the publication's existence.

(though now that i think of it, did you not do a freesheet a while ago that had a fair share of images of balaclavaed youths flinging bins and the like? hoist by your own petard, etc)

This is what I was hoping we'd get around to anyways. Yeh having read a lot of left wing magazines, like huge amounts (looking through the wsm's library of international and local magazines.) I would say that most of them don't tend to resort to such imagery.

I did right a freesheet called insurrection which had an image of a guy with a slingshot on the cover, yes, but this was the only violent imagery used in the entire thing. It was a polemic from an insurrectionist pov. 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.

 

[Vinnie]

Edit: Wrong thread. Ha! What a dickhead.

 

[egg_]

More a change in life/work.style brought about by technological advances.

True
With more long-lasting consequences than any regular revolution, I should imagine.

 

[W.]

True
With more long-lasting consequences than any regular revolution, I should imagine.

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.

 

[snakybus]

I dunno. I've known some pretty violent farmers.

 

[W.]

Thought I'd throw in these links hope i'm not side tracking the discussion.

10 theses on violence at anti-capitalist demos
http://www.wombles.org.uk/g8/10theses.php

Destruction as a means of struggle
http://libcom.org/library/destruction-as-a-means-of-struggle-pannekoek

I don't fully agree with either, just picking my way through http://libcom.org/library/violence which is full of good relevent texts.

 

[hugh]

Some of our most important rights were won through campaigns that refused to exclude violence as a tactic; womens right to vote, 8hour day/40 hour week, equal rights for black people (america) ...

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