How NON-VIOLENCE protects the state...

I'm an anarcho-pacifist and therefore I deny this accusation... anyway I'm gonna read this book when I have time for it... you can download it at onebigtorrent.org

 

yeah, its a fucking fantastic book.
pacifist or not, it is definitely worth challenging how 'non-violence' is imposed by some activists on others. this is the strongest part of his argument.
link:
onebigtorrent.org/torrents/3828/HOW-NONVIOLENCE-PROTECTS-THE-STATE--Peter-Gelderloos

 

Ammunition for Peacemakers: Answers for Activists by Phillips P. Moulton is a pretty good read to. If a book is able to make a eloquent point I see no point in not reading it .I love when people are able to read and support literature with theory's they do not agree with. Its necessary for us to understand everything to an extent. I personally have found myself struggling with beliefs in pacifism opposed to violent overthrow but often it seems to me as though violence only perpetuates violence. We can commit atrocies acts of violence as "revenge" for then we become who we are fighting. But that doesn't mean we can not be militant focus more on destruction of institution rather than people.

 

I just saw Peter Gelderloos speak in Kitchener, Ontario last week (just in time for the G20. Go figure!). I haven't had a chance to read the book yet, though I did pick up a copy at the Montreal Anarchist Bookfair last weekend. He talked a lot about how a lot of non-violent action has failed horribly in getting it's point across, citing the massive anti-Iraq war protests in 2003 (which I took part in, despite being only 13 years old...), and the homogenizing effects of groups who use non-violence as their sole act of protest. He talked a bit about the recent happenings in Greece, but I can't remember exactly what he said. Somewhere, there's a video recording of it, which I'll post in the "Documentary" section, and in this thread, whenever I get a hold of it.

 

assassinating people in power is the only way to get things done. do it so often that you scare anyone into wanting to be in a position of power for fear of their lives (or their families lives.. that could be as effective.)

 

wouldn't you then be ruling by threat of force just the same as the state? personally i'm not interested in achieving any society that has to maintain itself by utilizing the same violence that the current one does.

 

I read one page or so last time when I got a copy by poor chance and that page was crap... that guy really argued, that non-violence was racist and not with to good points...
Well I already orderd a copy and gonna read that stuff, then I'm gonna give you my personal review.

Anyway I lately read a good Essay to the topic by Errico Malatesta which is called "Anarchismus und Gewalt" in German, I guess it should be anarchism and violence in English. Fine stuff.

If you can scare anyone out of the position of power you are obviously in power, so I'm supposed to kill you...
There is no more despisable power to take oneself than the one over the lives of others.

 

what do u suggest then. throwing flowers at people? HOPEING? without violence there will NEVER be anarchism.

 

funny... in my opinion there will never be anarchism WITH violence (or founded on it).

What do I suggest? Well I guess the hard way, buildung up a new society, educating people about their real position, also I like the syndicalist idea of a general strike to break the power of capital. Non commitment and simply neglecting orders given is the way to go in my opinion.
Of course this is way more difficult than simply killing the people in power and hoping that nobody will take their place.
Actually anarchists in the 19th century tried this, it was called the propaganda of the deed. It failed terribly leaving the people associating anarchism with pointless violence. Hell this stupid strategy nearly smashed the whole anarchist scene, it gave the powerful a good excuse to deportate the most important anarchists (which were more or less non-violent) to sovjet russia.
I wont let that happen again.

 

ever hear the phrase "bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity"? violence for anarchism is about the same. samuel edwark konkin III outlined a pretty effective method for attaining a stateless society without the need to initiate violent force(armed defense is however present) in his book "the new libertarian manifesto", it's freely available at www.agorism.info as well as a number of other resources related to konkin's theory.

 

right cause the people in power in the current society are going to just let you do that.

throw money in peoples faces and they will take it, unless you destroy all value. some scabs will always be willing to work.

sounds like dreamland to me.

 

there were alsmost 10 million syndicalists in germany, shortly before they were smashed by the fascists, if we get so many people organised again it will be an easy thing.

 

Firstly, the separation does have to be made between aggressive violence and self-defence. The violence imposed on you from, say, the Police is completely different from fighting back against them. The same applies for revolutionary violence against political leaders or bosses (take boss-nappings in France as a recent example). Collapsing all examples of violence into something inherently 'bad' is not only counter-intuitive, but also insults class struggle. The violence of State warfare (both between States and by the State against its population), colonialism, imposed poverty, exploitation, displacement, alienation, and assimilation placed on the exploited classes of the world by our ruling class (through Capitalism, the State, class divisions in society, and hierarchy most generally) ARE NOT comparable to acts of violence against our rulers. I feel such 'violent' acts of self-defence are completely understandable and justifiable. Yr, and others', assertion that the violence of our rulers and of our class are but one in the same to be highly insulting.

However, it may be worth noting that our tactics should be determined largely by their effectiveness. It follows that the focus on anarcho-syndicalism was, to a degree, due to the realisation that 'propaganda by the deed' was not being all that effective; anarcho-syndicalism's popularity was largely due to the fact that it was. However, it is no longer 1936 and I don't live in Barcelona. I wish to engage in effective political organising and action, regardless of whether it is 'violent'.

 

That's worked pretty well for most of Africa. All you will accomplish is creating a culture of murder. http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide- ... ria-1-of-8

 

Had they armed themselves there's no way they would have been smashed.......

 

Try to give examples that are relevant to anarchists, your generalizations don't apply when the parties involved are capitalistic religious zealots with ingrained tribal racism............

 

It is a generalization about people. Once you create a culture where killing is a legitimate response to someone you disagree with you, you lose humanity. The most basic idea behind anarchism is freedom from oppression right? What could possibly be more oppressive than living in a world where assassination is the norm? It doesn't matter what justification you use, murder is murder.

 

O.k. you go ahead and wear some flowers in your hair, I will pick up a weapon and use it to fight their oppression....you will never convince me otherwise and I probably won't change your mind either as you have stated in other threads you don't read anarchist theory and don't want to. You can call me all the names in your expansive vocabulary ghoul, but I guarantee you an armed revolution will succeed far and beyond your Utopian pacifist liberalism.