Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

How NON-VIOLENCE protects the state...

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Vegetarian Barbarian, Jun 1, 2010.

  1. statuliber

    statuliberExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    113

    0

    0

    Sep 13, 2009
     
    a revolution which is based upon violence cant be anarchist cause its put upon people not done by people themself. If you make a revolution using violence in the way you say you are going to be the oppressor. And when you are the oppressor I'm gonna stand against you.
    Are you going to raise your weapon against me?
     
  2. statuliber

    statuliberExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    113

    0

    0

    Sep 13, 2009
     
    they would have been. In spain they were armed and smashed all the same. Warefare is one of the few things which are better to manage and easier to win if you are fascist.
     
  3. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,720

    171

    716

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    Yes I am because you would be a counterrevolutionary which would be against the wishes of the majority of the people, which you choose to call the oppressors in your circular logic way of thinking.
     
  4. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,720

    171

    716

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    This is defeatist thinking and they were ultimately defeated because of the people like you within the CNT FAI that were diametrically opposed to violence before the revolution broke out. What you propose is not Libertarianism or Syndicalism it is pacifist liberalism and has nothing to do whatsoever with anarchism, so if your proposing liberal pacifism say so, don't masquerade as an anarchist.
     
  5. statuliber

    statuliberExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    113

    0

    0

    Sep 13, 2009
     
    You are an utiliarist (meaning you wish the best for the majority no matter what it means to the minority) which is no anarchist concept whatsoever. Anarchy doesnt mean that the majority rules, it means that nobody rules! All this talk about counterrevolutionary is just a way to justify your violence, your oppression, your rulership. Today we are criminals and terrorists under you regime we are counterrevolutionary, today we are incacerated and exploited und your regime we are simply killed.
    Tell me again, how do you call it anarchy if you make the decision who is allowed to live and who isnt?
     
  6. statuliber

    statuliberExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    113

    0

    0

    Sep 13, 2009
     
    if you would know me you would never make such an accusation. Anyway it is just a simple way not to use arguments and instead discredit me as a person. It wont make you any less guilty of murder and oppression.
     
  7. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,720

    171

    716

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    My 'rulership' ? That isn't even a word, and neither is your other word 'utiliarist' with or without your attached meaning. And like I said before, I'm willing to give my life up for the defeat of the State.' My regime'? You don't know what to say do you? Save your petty bourgeois liberal pacifist arguments and made up rhetoric for people who don't understand what anarchist philosophy is and will always be.
     
  8. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,720

    171

    716

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    Maybe if you didn't make ridiculous liberal pacifist arguments I wouldn't think you were espousing that petty philosophy and I'm not discrediting you as a person, now you're making it personal when I just did give you an argument and discredited your stated beliefs.
     
  9. statuliber

    statuliberExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    113

    0

    0

    Sep 13, 2009
     
    sry, english is not my first language. But you are again attacking me on a personal level, which is neither nice nor productiv. How are we supposed to have any real discussion, when you are just picking on my spelling?
    by the way, you are right of course it is called utilitarist, with a t.

    Beside attacking me you don't bring any new points. and you are not answering my question:
    How do you call it anarchy if you make the decision who is allowed to live and who isnt?
     
  10. statuliber

    statuliberExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    113

    0

    0

    Sep 13, 2009
     
    stating that a argument is ridiculous doesn't make it ridiculous or any less true. By the way, which argument do you exactly mean?
     
  11. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,720

    171

    716

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    It is anarchy when the will of the collective decides to go to war against the State in an armed revolution, where the forces of the rich and the bourgeois will aim to murder and oppress the will of the collective. If you as a pacifist decide against the will of the collective then you simply don't have to participate, but if you as a pacifist decide to oppose the will of the collective and side with the State then you will be considered an enemy combatant. And I wasn't "attacking" you personally statuliber as that is not my style, it is difficult enough to know who is not an English speaker when there are so many on this forum who like to argue anarchist theory without understanding what it really means (even when English is their first language) and if I offended you I apologize. Having said that, I do not apologize for my strong belief in the power of true anarchism and the need for armed struggle.
     
  12. statuliber

    statuliberExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    113

    0

    0

    Sep 13, 2009
     
    yeah but if this collective decides all by it self who is the enemy and even fights against people who oppose their view on that point, isn't this collective using violence as a mean to obtain power, dominance?

    I would never side with the state. If I consider the conquest of a collectiv or whatever illegitim I will simply stand between the fronts trying to stop the violence. It is not black and white, its not to forces meeting on the battle field and the good ones leave again, a war is always connected with devastating consequences to the people.

    oh and going to war can never be anarchy (at least not in my understanding of it), i suppose you mean you would try to achieve anarchy by going to war, but it will only come afterwards.
     
  13. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,341

    6

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
    Male, 43 years old
    Long Beach CA United States
    statuliber, you sound like such a fool. your way of achieving anarchism ssounds like just sitting around and hoping people will change their ,minds and come around to it, without actions. and that is a load of crap, and a good way to keep the state the way it is and the idiots in power contented. You claim anarchism is not about majority, or voting, so you see it as a free for all with no order. you don't seem to get that anarchism means NO GOVERNMENT not No Order. Not No rules. read a few books.
     
  14. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,337

    63

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada United States
    Oh then you are saying that all anarchists in the history are fake anarchists ? Of course only YOU is the real anarchist, peoples like Emiliano Zapata, ricardo flores magon, nestor makhno, the spanish revolutionnaries, the CNT, the angry brigade (i'm not going to name all exemples of violent anarchists because tthere are TOO MANY) are fake anarchists ? You have never achieved anything so stop talking shit about all the anarchists who fought oppression.

    A revolution will ALWAYS BE violent. It's the peoples who would oppose to the majority of the peoples (the revolution) who would use violence. What are you going to do when the counter-revolutionnaries raise their weapons on the people and when the people fight back ? You are "going to stand against us" like you said ? Then we know which side you are on : not on the anarchist side.

    In a revolution barricades only have two sides


    Yes anarchism is about the majority, we will ALWAYS need to take decisions to establish how a society works, and how the fuck will you decide that if "nobody rules" ? You are naive and you don't understand what is anarchism, you just keep repeating the same old chichés.


    Statuliber your views are nasty and smells liberalism, not surprising you have a shitty nickname like "Statute of Liberty", you probably really think this statute represents freedom, well it doesn't, it is as shitty as your ideas.


    A revolution is a civil war sherlock, you are very naive. Anarchism is all about class war.

    Yes anarchists are non-violent, but not pacifist. You just don't understand that non-violence is just about not attacking first, not about not fighting back. When the capitalist armies start killing peoples if the so-called anarchists POS like you doesn't do anything, then it's you who's a lazy and a fake anarchist, not the peoples who have the courage to fight back and defend themselves.
     
  15. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,337

    63

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada United States
    Exactly.

    Damn butcher, i love you. Hopefully we have some peoples like you here who have the patience to explain to others, peoples who really know what they are talking about. Or else this forum would be a disaster with all those idiots saying anything and thinking they know everything about anarchism. Thanks for being here :)

    Same for punkmar77 and all the others who have the courage to spend their time trying to explain to the people who refuse to hear and who probably never read anarchist theories in their life...

    Together we make this forum sound less dumb :)
     
  16. Bunny

    BunnyExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    201

    0

    1

    Mar 13, 2010
     
    True, but there are devastating consequences if you do nothing as well. I don't think i have to tell you how many consequences there are to people (and animals, and the environment) in the society we live in now. Its better to face some loses in fighting for something then letting them happen while you stand idly by.

    Look, I'd love to have a peaceful society; however its not going to happen without fighting. An anarchic society will not happen by simply asking nicely, if it was that easy, we'd be living in one and this discussion wouldn't be taking place. If you want peace, you have to march with a white flag in one hand and a gun in the other to show that you'll get it by force if you have to.
     
  17. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,720

    171

    716

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    No the will of the collective to put anarchism into action is in itself anarchy, so going to war to abolish the State and the class system is also anarchy. The State has the people living under 'devastating consequences' without the revolution, and you are right about it not being black and white, but that does not change the goals of anarchist collectives.

    again you are full of 'yeah but if's', anarchism makes it very clear from the beginning who the enemies of the people are, there is no 'deciding'. And violence would only be used to destroy power and dominance, not obtain it.
     
  18. QueerPunk

    QueerPunkExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    430

    2

    0

    Dec 29, 2009
     
    There is always going to be some violence in any revolution be it from the forces of reaction or from the revolutionaries defending themselves. I do believe in violence if you have to defend yourself...for example if I have somebody trying to stab me or bottle me the I see it a necessary evil to break their wrist while disarming them. That is totally justifiable as it is an act of survival.


    Violence for the sake of violence can be fun but it really is not productive. Any acts of revolutionary violence should be select and restrictive as opposed to all out mayhem which will just get everybody killed.

    George Jackson from the Black Panthers said this about nonviolence which I thought was interesting: "The concept of nonviolence is a false ideal. It presupposes the existence of compassion and a sense of justice on the part of one's adversary. When this adversary has everything to lose and nothing to gain by exercising justice and compassion, his reaction can only be negative." -- George Jackson

    Oh and as we should all know Ghandi was only successful because he was seen as the more peaceful option for the British to speak to because of the guerrilla fighters in other provinces who were picking off British soldiers. He is just painted as the father of the nation because of his pacifism but in actual fact he was in the right place at the right time, if it wasn't for those militants shooting Brits then Ghandi would have been ignored for the most part.
     
  19. statuliber

    statuliberExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    113

    0

    0

    Sep 13, 2009
     
    No, of course I'm not. Let me put it that way: Even anarchists often have internalised some means of oppression. For example Proudhon, of course he was an anarchist, but also an antisemit and sexist! Just because you are trying to achive anarchy doesn't mean that you don't oppresse people. Likewise I'm not perfect and I guess you are going to find some points were I'm also using means of oppression, I Just try to point out yours and would like if you do likewise.

    Statuliber is latin. It has to do nothing whatsoever to do with the Statue of Liberty, which of course only wears Liberty in its name.

    öhm I didnt say anything about not fighting back if an anarchist society is attacked. I nevere said that protecting oneself was bad. I only said, that in my view, this society worth defending can't be achieved using violence as a major mean.

    If you are talking about me (as I guess) you are wrong, i have read anarchist theory, quite a lot of it. There are texts which support my view. For example: Anarchism and Violence by Errico Malatesta
    But a who read what comparison is a little bit beside the point, isn't it? I mean a can also get a ruler to meter my penis, but I don't think it is a very important point in this discussion...

    You make it easy for yourself, if you act as every ethical question is already answered (and of course correctly answered). As Errico Malatesta states (my own translation): "But what gives us anarchists a special charakter, distinguishes us from all other parties, is the fact, that we are not of the opinion that we are in possesion of the absolut and indivisible truth."
    Okay maybe you are not such a fan of malatesta, than how about the Zapatist slogan of (again my translation): Going forward asking
    There are many decisions still open (as you can see by this single discussion) and just because you have sorted them out for yourself doesn't mean everybody has done so or in the same way.
    In my opinion violence is already dominance, cause the one more violent or acting out his*her violence in a better way dominates.

    I agree with you, thats totally justified.

    well defending oneself is of course a different topic than achieving a society using violence (as I have already stated) and this two questions should be handeld differntly (in my opinion). The only problem I see is your clear divided in Rulers and Oppressed. I fear that it is not that easy... And dont we anarchists preach equality? If we say everyone has the equal rights, how does it come that one has the right to live and the other hasnt, and that we decide about it?
     
  20. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,337

    63

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada United States
    Yes you are. You said that a revolution based on violence can't be anarchist. This means all quoted examples are not anarchists because you are so much anarchist that you can decide they are not anarchist.

    Put things back in its context. Back in the time even Marx himself was antisemit.

    All anarchists are against violence, they believe we should use it at last resort. Definatly not anyone's major mean.

    hahahaha you quote the zapatist, a movement that always used violence and that still use violence, armies and weapons today. funny.

    No it's not a different topic. Anarchists always tryed and will always try to peacefully achieve their ideals, but as always there will be confronted to violence so they will fight back with violence.

    When the armies of cops come to stop us and beat us how the hell are we supposed to react?


    What you say is fucking stupid. Rulers are NOT equal to oppressed, that's a fact. If we're to fight for equality, we must fight against social classes and therefore fight against rulers
     
Loading...