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
     
    I'm the only real anarchist? thanks for the compliment, i never thought of myself as that :)
    I reason that they were and are not perfectly free of dominance and rulers (so they are not perfectly anarchist). I reason this by the fact that the side which dominates a war decides what happens. Of course my reasoning could be false, if it is so could you point out the mistake?

    well if it is like that and you dont use violence for achieving something and just for defending yourself we dont have any problem here. But if you for example shoot at non violent people just because they keep you from attacking a person it is not the last resort and not for defending yourself.

    doesnt sound like last resort to me...


    and now in our time even you yourself spoke in favour of war ;)

    That is at least historically wrong. See the propaganda of the deed.

    that would be defense and i already said that it is justifiable to use violence her. anyway i would try using other means but this is more a personal preference, cause i fear the power of mass violence.

    maybe I put it wrong, we are not equal considering everything. but we say (or at least i thought so) that everybody is equal in his*her right to live. We fight against the rulers as oppressors not as living beings.
     
  2. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    @statuliber - you identify yrself as an anarcho-pacifist, which i have absolutely no issues with; diversity of tactics is sweet.
    Further, yr comment:
    I read as an attempt to engage in a discussion on effective tactics and strategies, which is no doubt necessary.

    However yr comments:
    do outline a few flaws with yr reasoning.

    1. I thought we were engaged in a class war. You collapse 'warfare' into that which occurs between Nation States, ignoring the multiplicity of methods of warfare, or who is involved. We are at 'war' with the State and Capital whenever we act against its interests, examples include strikes (striking during wartime is often deemed to be an act of treason), sabotage, violent insurrection, draft refusal, etc, etc. Moreover, those partaking in this war (and yes, even armed struggle!) are often broader then the isolated gang of anarchists you seem to imply. You mention the CNT in Spain, it may be worth noting that this armed struggle was not 'forces meeting on the battlefield' who created 'devastating consequences for the people', rather it was a war between the people and the fascists (and latter the Stalinists). You appear to be arguing that armed struggle is always elitist and alienating to 'the people', this is hardly the case. One could only come to such a conclusion from a very selective reading of history. You ignore the violence of the EZLN, of the ppl in Spain, Ukraine, Russia, Oaxaca, Greece, etc, etc.

    2. Your statement '...guilty of murder and oppression.' completely mystifies what oppression actually is. Oppression is at base a social relationship, one which is prolonged in nature and acts of behalf of the oppressor to hold down the oppressed. Should the oppressed subject act in resistance to and seek to destroy this relationship (by whatever means) then this subject is not acting oppressively, quite the opposite.

    3. When did us anarchists become anything else than 'the people'? We exist as members of an oppressed class like most other people. But should we act to impose our will on others from above rather than acting in solidarity with our class then we are no doubt acting against the aims of anarchism. This however has absolutely nothing to do with the pros and cons of armed or violent struggle.


    Is it really? If you feel that an anarchist society is desirable, and if you hold that current social relationships are fundamentally oppressive, than surely the logical conclusion is that yr being oppressed. If you feel this is the case, then does it not follow that you have the right to fight for your liberation, and of those in your community? Would doing so not be an act of self-defence? If so, how?

    I sure as hell don't say everyone has equal rights. I say I desire to live in a society where that is the case. This is not the case due to the interests of our ruling class, we have to fight them to achieve equality and class-less society.

    The ruling class are pretty easy to identify imho, just look at one's relationship to the means of production.
    Does one sell his labour for a wage or does one extract surplus value from someone else?
    Is one denied the right to subsistence (whether through displacement from land, loss of access to resources, or unemployment) or does one use others' resources to extract profit and/or reinforce unemployment to increase their own material wealth?
    Does one, through the various arms of the State, act to further the interests of the Capitalist (or comparable ruling) class?


    Finally, whilst yr opinion that 'Propaganda by the Deed' is ineffective and elitist is one that I share, to draw the conclusion that all violent struggle is bad and counter-productive requires a massive leap in logic. You appear to be using facts and theory in a manner to reinforce yr personal prejudices rather than as evidence to support an exercise in critical and rational argument.
     
  3. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    aww shucks... :ecouteurs: are you flirting with me? <3
     
  4. statuliber

    statuliberExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    113

    0

    0

    Sep 13, 2009
     
    I see your point here. I would differentiate it as follows:
    warfare is a fight, a struggle which is based upon violent mass action over a longer period.
    war is a general term which often implies violence but doesnt have to really be violent (class war as an example)
    Hm, well yeah you are right I am of the opinion that violence is elitist and alienating. I do not however ignore the violence of the EZLN or whoever. I criticise it, which doesnt mean that i dont solidarise with these movements. I even think that violence can help developing an anarchist society, but I dont think that we should use it that way, or that violence itself can be anarchist.

    it is not that easy... is everyone capitalist who owns bonds? and what about a baker who owns his own bakery?
    they are capital too
    and this only counts for capitalist oppression, there are many ways of oppression
     
  5. QueerPunk

    QueerPunkExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    430

    2

    0

    Dec 29, 2009
     
    First let me clear things up....Marx was not and anti-semite....he was a Jew himself.


    Secondly...Anarchists cannot speak entirely (if at all) for all Anarchists around...some of us believe in violent confrontation when it is deemed necessary and in cases of defending against the forces of reaction it is justifiable, some of us are pacifists and some of us are split down the middle.
     
  6. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,337

    64

    24

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

    QueerPunkExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    430

    2

    0

    Dec 29, 2009
     

    I come from an incredibly secular Jewish household myself and I have been called a self-hating Jew by many of my own for being an Anti-Zionist despite the fact that I grew up in a Jewish Socialist Anti-Zionist youth movement but we won't get into that now will we.
     
  8. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    -Letter from Marx to Engels, 30 July 1862
     
  9. QueerPunk

    QueerPunkExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    430

    2

    0

    Dec 29, 2009
     
    So he was a self-hating Jew...who cares?
     
  10. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    I do only insofar as i think it amusing.

    It may be worth noting, however, that baseless accusations of 'self-hatred' for being an ex-member of the Bund, critical of Zionist politics and Israel is somewhat different then calling someone a 'Jewish nigger'. Regardless I make no conclusions about Marx either way, he's well dead. I would only be engaging in speculation.



    @statuliber: Short on time at the moment :beers: Will respond to yr previous comments in due course.
    L8er h8er :ecouteurs: ;)
     
  11. Radicalvoice89

    Radicalvoice89Member Forum Member


    18

    0

    0

    Jul 14, 2010
     
    Assassination and political violence isn't counter productive at all. It is a direct course of action. It is a means to an end, not a new system of violence. Yes many anarchists in the 1800's used terror to make an impression and take action but they did it for a reason. The state won out in these particular cases and made monsters of these anarchist simply because they used terror. As bad as it sounds I think their heart was in the right place but what happened was not their intent. For many, Sergei Nechaev excluded, violence against the state made a lot of sense, and could and did do a lot of good. For the cause of a revolution not anarchy. Assassination in our times would be an incredibly effective means to an end, and here is why.
    If we were to eliminate all of the competent and smart political leaders in control of our governments today what would that leave us? A whole lot of incompetent pencil pushers that have no idea what is really going on in the world. They would be put in charge and they would make grave mistakes in office that would turn the public as a whole against them and the State. These incompetent leaders are the key to our future, its gotta get worse before it gets better, because then we will not be the only ones that see the extent of state oppression and we wont be the only ones who resent the lopsidedness of this system today.
    I don't think anarchy will be founded on violence at all. Lets just say the bullets will start the stone rolling down the hill towards a better tomorrow.
     
  12. QueerPunk

    QueerPunkExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    430

    2

    0

    Dec 29, 2009
     
    All this debate on yet another dead White male (Marx)...fuck him...

    NEXT
     
  13. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    Engels?
     
Loading...