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

Violence

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by Paczilla, Jan 2, 2014.

  1. Paczilla

    PaczillaExperienced Member Experienced member


    130

    2

    2

    Jun 28, 2012
     United States
    What do you think of violence as a tool for achieving revolution or in any political setting? Is it worth using? Should it be avoided at all cost? Or, should it be used only in self defense?
     

  2. Bakica

    BakicaExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    951

    0

    0

    Feb 21, 2010
     
    Worth using ? Where do you live ? Violence against private property, institutions and government itself is the only way to achive something. We have discussed this so freaking many times on this forum, I just don't want to end up in another pseudohippie pacifist argument. Pacifism is reformism, nothing else. I'd call it self defense, yes. Is violence justified ? Not sure. Is it legitimate ? It is, at least more than governemnt is.
     
  3. RudiRotten

    RudiRottenMember Forum Member


    14

    0

    0

    Jun 22, 2013
     
    I don't think that violence is a good way to achieve goals. Violence often helps the other side to justify violence against us. But in my opinion violence must be an option when all other options do not help.

    So violent acts must be a possibilty in case of direct action. But they should be used carefully and not without sense. The best evidence for false violence are riots in suburbs where the victims are poor people and not the government/rich people/capitalists/racist scumbags.

    This sounds probably a little bit unrealistic because of lots of violent acts by governmental troops, but to react on violence with violence isn't always the best way. Even that it is a way at all. Pacifsm in every case is in my opinion not the right way, too.
     
  4. predic

    predicMember Forum Member


    18

    0

    0

    Feb 11, 2010
     
    if you are rich activist, you will print books and make peaceful protests, if you are hungry and angry activist, you will use violence. people watch their personal interest and not only revolutionary strategy when they choose methods of fight.
    from the view of political philosophy, violence is justified only in the time of revolution, from the view of poor discriminated immigrant in France, Denmark, Sweden, often spied by so called citizens who collaborate with secret service, burning cars, hospitals, schools, etc, is very good. if you are not discriminated, there are people who are discriminated, and yeah, in hospitals, in schools, libraries...
    now you know why people burn such things like hospitals. medical help is depending from level of your money in your pocket, so, system, health care system too, is there for riches and middle class who produce profit for riches, others are excluded.

    so, choose your methods of fight in accordance with your understanding and your interest, we are not hit in the same way by capitalist system, many people don't give a shit for opinion of others, as there are always rich activists who scream on people who want to use violence. usually their argument is: we will be under repression because of you. so, insurrection anarchists don't discuss with them anymore, our movement is divided because of rich and poor anarchists and consequently we have different interests, rich can wait for revolution, poor can't wait, poor will die (from illness produced by poverty) before revolution become reality. and beside it, many people scream because they work for secret service, they get money and nice job from secret service and they keep us under control. so, there should be no peace and unity in our movement, without fight there is no change in society, without fight inside of our movement, there will be no changes in our movement. so, fight is good, not bad. united people usually don't have freedom inside of their groups and they create informal leaders before or later, such leaders may work for secret service before or later, then they can easy kick out those who are not under control, unadapted individuals. so, we should stay out of control, that's possibly only with keeping diversity among us and organizing instead of uniting. accept differences and be solidary instead to push others to be the same as you. then we will have pacifists and militants who work together instead to attack each others, we will have organized instead of united movement. then anarchist movement will not stagnate as it stagnate last 70 years, let's say from death of emma goldman, although it happened even during her life.
    in old times, anarchists were poor the same as population, they bought guns and robbed local riches, they spent money for revolutionary causes (but for personal use also, to buy food and rent flat) and they made great actions together. today, anarchists buy laptop 2000 euro instead to buy a gun, they go to tenerifa/mallorca and speak "wait for revolution, it is not time to make attack" and so on. even if they make graffiti, their hands are shaking... secret service is not passive, indymedia was good project but already infiltrated by secret service, etc. the same is with other groups, 3 anarchists in Denmark wanted to burn police academy, they were bugged/spied one month before that and they were arrested during act, before they succeeded to burn anything. it means, some collaborator of secret service warned about them and they were followed and bugged by agents. collaborators are their friends (possibly anarchists) who knew they are militant. so, be smart and speak about violent actions in the nature, not in some room that can be bugged. they got 7 years of prison and anarchists never found who warned secret service about them. it means, anarchists in Denmark are under control, if you want to do anything violent, don't speak to anybody. just do it and pretend you think it is done by some crazy person. so, you will stay free and make actions many years.
     
  5. NoGodsNoMasters38

    NoGodsNoMasters38Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    138

    0

    3

    Oct 17, 2013
     
    I am OK with it for the most part, as long as it has a good reason. The establishment will use violence against us, they don't care if we're pacifists. Essentially, I believe in self defense.
     
  6. Paczilla

    PaczillaExperienced Member Experienced member


    130

    2

    2

    Jun 28, 2012
     United States
    I agree, i don't think that we should just go out on the street and start shooting cops and politicians and shit, but if they start to come after us, then things will get pretty bloody on both ends.
     
  7. IronBENGA

    IronBENGAActive Member Forum Member


    37

    0

    1

    Jan 13, 2014
     
    I think violence can be a tool - if not the best one - against the establishment if it is used right. Against the right targets, on the right moment, by the right people and on the right measure. Otherwise, it can turn everyone - including our own cause - against itself.

    "But whats the right moment for violence as a tool of revolution"? Thats the million dollar question
     
  8. IronBENGA

    IronBENGAActive Member Forum Member


    37

    0

    1

    Jan 13, 2014
     

    DING-DING-DING!

    Perfect
     
  9. Bakica

    BakicaExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    951

    0

    0

    Feb 21, 2010
     

    If they start to come after us ? Hey, that's damn stupid, I'd say. If you're going to wait for a politician to come after you with a gun you'll never change anything. If you believe in self defense you should start thinking about violent revolution because we are being attacked NOW, every day, every hour. Violence is the only way, people should have realized that long time ago. History should have tought us something. Nothing is black and white, I absolutely agree that violence has it's flaws ( Black Block for example, even though I support the idea - there are so many examples of wrong usage of violance against property ). But that is still not an argument against violence.
     
  10. Paczilla

    PaczillaExperienced Member Experienced member


    130

    2

    2

    Jun 28, 2012
     United States
    To be honest, if i weren't the only person around here (As in my small area of the world) that was an Anarchist, i would be doing something (I won't say what, self incrimination and whatnot). The problem is, im one person, and i don't feel like getting the living shit beat out of me or possibly killed. I would be no use dead, and until im able to find people like me around me, im just sitting, twiddling my damn thumbs. Hell, if their were any Anarchist groups that accepted foreign volunteers i would start walking there now.
     
  11. Bakica

    BakicaExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    951

    0

    0

    Feb 21, 2010
     
    :thumbsup:
     
  12. NoGodsNoMasters38

    NoGodsNoMasters38Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    138

    0

    3

    Oct 17, 2013
     
    I meant in a revolution, we shouldn't dwell on violence. However, if we are met with aggression, we cannot be pacifists because we will be pepper sprayed and shit.
     
  13. Bakica

    BakicaExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    951

    0

    0

    Feb 21, 2010
     
    @NoGods : I wasn't actually answering to your post :)
     
  14. Spike one of many

    Spike one of manyExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    1,073

    4

    37

    Aug 14, 2012
     South Africa
    Agreed. When met with aggression we must show that we're not afraid to fight back. And make it count!
     
  15. Bakica

    BakicaExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    951

    0

    0

    Feb 21, 2010
     
    We're constantly met with agression. In my opinion, anarchism is fighting back on every level and every day, not just when you go out to protest and get beaten by cops. Capitalism has reached it's limits long time ago, and is aggressively attacking every aspect of our life. This sounds too dramatic, but it's true. You can't be a rebel JUST on a protest. Violence against private property is nowadays one of the best ways to attack the system.
     
  16. Paczilla

    PaczillaExperienced Member Experienced member


    130

    2

    2

    Jun 28, 2012
     United States
    I agree completely, but i have a few problems with violence in general. Violence against property means nothing to me, if i had to opportunity to burn something to the ground like a superstore (No names, im not having cops come to my house and arresting me for terroristic threats) with pretty much no hesitation. But people, its completely different. You can't have violence without someone innocent playing the price, plus if you hurt someone or kill someone you gotta live with that. If you've ever watched anyone die before you would know exactly what im talking about. I still wake up in cold sweats from some of the shit ive seen.
     
  17. IronBENGA

    IronBENGAActive Member Forum Member


    37

    0

    1

    Jan 13, 2014
     
    Totally dude. We can all agre that objects dont suffer violence. Only people can. Objects are only means to archieve something, not the objective on itself
     
  18. Bakica

    BakicaExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    951

    0

    0

    Feb 21, 2010
     
    I don't know what we're talking about here. Violence against private property exists, and I was refering to that kind of violence as the best way of directly attacking the system nowadays.
     
  19. UnityFreedomAnarchy

    UnityFreedomAnarchyActive Member Forum Member


    28

    0

    0

    Jul 18, 2013
     
    I oppose violence against people, I'm conflicted on property damage.
    Sometimes to fight is necessary, ie self defence, or when all other options have failed but I feel when you use violence you just become the new face of oppression-we can define the state as that which controls the use of force in a given jurisdiction, therefore the use of force; ie violence is the tool of the oppressor.
    However, with every day where I see nothing improving and everything just getting worse for the majority, I become more and more angry and begin to see a potential in violent direct action even though it does contradict with my deep set ethics.
     
  20. NoGodsNoMasters38

    NoGodsNoMasters38Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    138

    0

    3

    Oct 17, 2013
     
    Property is theft.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - ViolenceForumDate
I have a band called Lesion from Central FL. (powerviolence/noise/stuff)Musician Forum & Band PromotionOct 14, 2014
French Anonyma - Violence - 2014 (France)International anarcho-punk downloadsMar 11, 2014
How Nonviolence Protects the State(Book)Anarchism and radical activismDec 15, 2013
Morgul Tongue---Lord of the Rings based sludge/powerviolence bandMusician Forum & Band PromotionAug 24, 2013
Testify! Eco Defense and the Politics of ViolenceDocumentaries & MoviesJul 27, 2013