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

Pacifism vs. Political Violence

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by Carcass, Jan 23, 2010.

  1. Rathryn

    RathrynExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    853

    0

    0

    Oct 21, 2009
     
    Don't get me wrong, it's not like I don't care, I wouldn't be here if that were true.
    Simply put fighting fire with fire seems to perpetuate the endless cycle of violence. Violence begets more violence. The only way violence can beget peace if at one point the nukes DO fly and everyone is dead.
    I simply do not see violence as a useful tool for progress, with the exception of a last resort. Personally, like many have said before me, education seems a far more appropriate tool.
     
  2. grindotorium

    grindotoriumMember New Member


    9

    0

    0

    Dec 28, 2009
     
    Ward churchill's book "pacifism as pathology" is an excellent read on this subject.
     
  3. oibobbo

    oibobboActive Member Forum Member


    38

    0

    0

    Jan 15, 2010
     
    the question pacifism brings to my mind is
    how can we be expected to change the world if we follow their set of values?
    (them being you should be a nice complying slave)
    being peaceful makes it easy to get squashed
    being violent gives them the excuse they need for a violent opression.
    i don't think either solution is perfect
    and because the world is'nt black and white ,i support a "grey"
    solution,a third route...
    whatever that is... don't know yet...
     
  4. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,717

    171

    715

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    I wrote a short story of fiction about a Bio-Chemical engineer/Scientist who is also an ALF/ELF operative. The Character gets absolutely dismayed at the World and decides to take the Human Genome and reverse the Evolution of Man by releasing an agent through the planets Flora thus bringing Man to an end on the planet. Would that be a 'grey' third solution?
    o_O
     
  5. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    What a lot of people teo miss is that it isn't a zero-sum game. You can generally oppose violence without being a pacifist. The bottom line is whether or not it is ethically justified, that there is no feasible or legitimate option, and that it will have benificial consequences. If anti-state violence exacerbates state oppression and makes things worse, it's worse than a failure. It all depends on context.

    To elaboratea police state like China, Russia, or Iran violence is probably unavoidable if one seeks to challenge or change the status quo. However, in the west, particularly in the United States, we do have non-violent alternatives to interact with the state and hold it accountable. Sadly, most radicals, and even more tragically, most working class people, don't even make the effort.
     
  6. back2front

    back2frontExperienced Member Experienced member


    95

    0

    0

    Nov 26, 2009
     
    Yes, that's why earlier I was saying it might be better to use the word 'force' in place of the word 'violence' because the latter word instantly represents a negative connotation ie a destructive one.
    I would say, unequivocally that most people are against 'violence', that is to say destructive force resulting in suffering and death. But the urge to destroy ccan also be a creative urge.

    I do not glorify force. I tend to avoid it in every situation, I mediate were possible and try to resolve situations when they arise. In many situations the use of force is counter-productive.

    The State encourages pacifist protest - it describes it as 'acceptable' and uses its media to decry anyone else using force. It often pushes for war a liberal apologist for the TV camera who will complain about how "violent anarchists ruined an otherwise peaceful demonstration". (In some cases random acts of destruction ARE pointless it should be added). The reason for this constant image of acceptable protest is because it allows the boss class to boast about freedom to protest but moreso because that type of protest merely stretches budget for a day and is ineffective. It presents no threat and as long as PROTEST PRESENTS NO THREAT it will be tolerated.

    But these days cops are even attacking the pacifists without provocation - budget cuts in a recession?

    Spin back to 2003 - the biggest people's movement in history takes to the streets, a world-wide protest against the invasion of Afghanistan. People are rightly sickened by the use of war to secure resources to perpetuate corporate elites. Yet despite this overwhleming revulsion the protest was completely ignored and therefore de facto irrelevant. Despite the fact that the decsion to go to war had long been decided in corporate boardrooms behind closed doors the question I would ask is would that protest have been more effective, more challenging, more of a threat worthy of consideration if it had adopted the use of force. Rather than marching around pre-ordained cop-friendly routes with banners held high (I'm sure the boss class was quaking in their bots) what might have happened if people had marched on known munitions and military installations and attempted to destroy them, by force?

    Or what would happen if anarchists managed to push the general strike and they began to occupy buildings and factories and began to re-organise society around mutual aid and direct democracy and usher in an anarchist communist society. Imagine our dreams finally becoming a reality.... and then the State sends in the troops - would you defend the revolution by force, knowing that people will likely die as a result? Do you really believe in anarchism if you are not prepared to defend the revolution? It is not that we glorify force but that we accept that it MUST be part of the revolution.

    Nonviolence and force are two tactics that are necessary and useful in some situations. As a diverse species we should reflect this in our tactics. It's up to you what you want to do at the end of the day but consider that trying to bore the boss class death with sit-ins and regurgitated Viet Nam war songs will not, on its own, achieve anything. And those who consider using force might consider when it is appropriate to back down and when it is appropriate to man the barricades.
     
  7. Vegetarian Barbarian

    Vegetarian BarbarianExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    719

    0

    0

    Oct 19, 2009
     

    no that would be an EXCELLENT third solution.
     
  8. BlinkoChrist

    BlinkoChristExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    158

    1

    0

    Nov 1, 2009
     
    if we did that...wouldn't people become more primitive and violent and harder to deal with?
     
  9. Vegetarian Barbarian

    Vegetarian BarbarianExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    719

    0

    0

    Oct 19, 2009
     
    it seems to me that we cant get much more violent and harder to deal with, and even if we could, we dont need a reverse in evolution to do it. But he wrote bring "man to an end" which is ok by me. :thumbsup:
     
  10. jessfive

    jessfiveExperienced Member Experienced member


    59

    0

    1

    Jan 27, 2010
     
    You can't silence ideas with bullets. In Argentina, people are taking over factories - see the movie "The Take" - they are using the system against itself. Soldiers have tried to shut down the factories and the people fight them off with slingshots and rocks - no joke. The thing is, that the community is in full support of the factory takeovers. Without the support of the community, their occupation would not have lasted. The people get what the people desire unless it's a fascist state were they just kill everyone. Violence just creates more violence. A "peace" made with violence is a false peace.
     
  11. BlinkoChrist

    BlinkoChristExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    158

    1

    0

    Nov 1, 2009
     
    So that would be an example of non violence as opposed to pacifism, yeah?
     
  12. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,717

    171

    715

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States

    Ok Jess, and what if those activists had listened to their non-violent or pacifist comrades, would those factories have just been handed over? Argentina has one of the worse human rights records of any south american nation and it must have been a terrifying notion to the people who gathered the strength and courage to carry out those takeovers. You are right about the support of the community making it happen, but I guarrantee that the actions of defending themselves with slingshots and rocks inspired the community to rally around them.
     
  13. SurgeryXdisaster

    SurgeryXdisasterExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    977

    1

    4

    Oct 8, 2009
     
    I always support Non-violent resistance, until the shit hits the fan.
    There comes a time when you MUST rise.
    complete and total pacifism is a great ideal
    but in this world it is just another word for cowardice.
     
  14. Senri

    SenriMember Forum Member


    12

    0

    0

    Feb 4, 2010
     
    I have to agree with SurgertXdisaster. Killing someone is the very last resort.
    You have to do all you can to avoid violence, but if there is no other option, at all, I guess you have to use it.
    Even for cops.
     
  15. SurgeryXdisaster

    SurgeryXdisasterExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    977

    1

    4

    Oct 8, 2009
     
    http://news.yahoo.com/video/business-15 ... s-18288289

    what you guys think about this? A guy who was fed up with the shit we all say we're fed up with actually did something, effectively ending his life and the life of an IRS agent. He crashed his private airplane into an IRS building destroying it almost completely. All i can say is IRS = Scum. And that a man that serves the state with his body is no man at all, but a tool to a oppressive and hidden agenda.
     
  16. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,717

    171

    715

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    I think it was tragic for the poor office shmuck that lost his life, he was a defenseless human being that had no clue death was coming at him and the guy who did it identified with the extreme right wingers known as 'Patriots' check the info at the Southern Poverty Law Center's website, sorry don't have the link. In the end what did his act achieve? Is the IRS shaking in its boots? Will more 'Patriotic' Americans be inspired to commit individual acts of domestic terrorism? I find the whole incident cowardly in the extreme, the guy lit his own house on fire with his wife and stepdaughter still sleeping in the house! The guys who bombed the federal building in Oklahoma killed children that were in the daycare and were also inspired by the Nazi writings in the "Turner Diaries"...utterly pathetic
     
  17. Robino

    RobinoMember Forum Member


    23

    0

    0

    Feb 25, 2010
     
    A revolution may become bloody - but not as bloody as capitalism..
    So.. lets save some life and make revolution today!
     
Loading...