#125

Well for example countries like Brazil or India, Nigeria, etc have chosen (or rather due to their debts been forced) to sell important bits of land to private companies to use those resources for short term economic gain. If you lived in those areas where you experienced massive deforestation or huge threats to water security because a company had built a dam or siphoned off a vital source of water from your community, I think using violence to defend those things is ethically credible.

#126

i know its a narrow view but in terms of the proverbial man in the street, its dickheads at student protests wearing guy fawkes masks rather than yer freedom fighters isnt it

#128

I mostly agree tbh, using violence to try and register a protest or enact social change in Britain today looks pathetic at worst and reckless at best.
But as a last resort to stand up to fascism or to protect your way of life it can’t be ruled out completely.

4 Likes
#129

exactly. the trouble is defining last resort i guess

1 Like
#131

Not reading any of his turgid ramblings
But yes I suppose that’s the problem, civil society functions in the collective imagination more than enshrined in law. I think personally if the actions of a government or a private company has disturbed you or your families lives to an intolerable level or made it impossible to be an equal member of society in an economic or social capacity then violent campaigning is ethical.
Looking at the US civil rights movement in the 50s/60s, it’s still sort of taboo to say the Black Panthers were in the right for example, and would they have been successful if there wasn’t a popular peaceful movement acting alongside it? Possibly not tbh. But would the peaceful movement have been successful by itself, without a palpable sense of frustration and the possibility of violence in the background? Unsure.

#132

I think I hate this thread.

#135

Have we agreed on a list of things to smash yet?

#136

Capitalism first, then still_here

4 Likes
#137

Yeah, well I guess I’m more of an syndicalist than an outright anarchist (I’m not really anti the existence of states), but yeah as someone who has been heavily involved in organising in the past and who has basically been disappointed and let down (and sometimes horrified) by other self-appointed anarchists a lot of times in the past (from petty stuff like turning the whole thing into an exercise in social capital and posturing, to way darker things like being an apologist for rape & domestic violence because the perpetrator was too cool/in the right circles/a “proper” activist to boot out, leaving their victims being the one ostracised), I’m wary of people amplifying the existing problems with violence, abuse, homophobia, sexism, racism etc within those activism circles and dressing it up as resistance to fascism.

I’m not some 100% turn the other cheek pacifist, it depends on the context, as @Ruffers rightly pointed out, it’s just a path I’m very wary about.

2 Likes
#138

It really does my head in when anarchist groups who reject hierarchical structures suddenly think saying that is enough and don’t recognise/try to do anything about the lop sided structures within their own groups. Like, I don’t agree with the existence of nation states but it’s obvious that we live in one and it’s absurd to ignore those structures in our own mentalities and stuff.

3 Likes
#139

Very much an attitude of of “we will sort out the racism, sexism, homophobia after we have smashed the state”

But then you know some of the rows I’ve had with people, seeing as you know some of them. Even the frustrating stupid ones like the whole chair deal were basically based on me wanting to make sure disabled people were actually accommodated vs people wanting to feel cool and acting like seating is way boujie and we should all sit on pallets etc

#140

Exactly! Yeah I know and I feel like it’s frankly impossible not to get immediately tired of it all :weary:

1 Like
#141

There are so many people who were involved who are tired and fed up, and feel a bit taken advantage of :confused:

#142

Just gonna post this all in one post so that I don’t seem like a complete egotist…

@Otto and @andyvine the ‘black box’ thing was just to signpost that, even though in the previous paragraph I implied that political violence isn’t just this one thing, but can be many things and means different things to different people, for (over)simplicity’s sake I treated it as if it was self-evident uncontested as to what it meant. Without being too marckee about it I thought ‘black box’ was a sort of semi-colloquial term but that’s probably not true. Also

maybe I should have made this clear, but I didn’t want to go anywhere near the question of how political violence can be implemented, partly because that’s a much harder question and partly cos it kinda depends. I know that separating the legitimacy of political violence from its success as a strategy is artificial, but you’ve kinda gotta work one step at a time I suppose (and also, I was arguing that adopting a liberal paradigmatic approach to demonstrate liberalism’s failure re: civil society is important, and liberalism makes these sort of false distinctions all the time).

@incandenza not gonna do a massive reply to this, but I’d say a lot of your post is critiquing a certain kind of violence, which isn’t your fault cos I was completely vague about it. However, I think you do overlook the success of political violence in the past, which liberalism always attempts to whitewash from history e.g. Mandela, suffragettes etc (btw I was completely stupidly wrong about political violence only making sense as revolutionary violence, as the suffragettes demonstrate).

@pervo honestly don’t worry about it, I’m just not a very good writer. Don’t know how to write this without seeming insincere.

@Ruffers Obviously my opinion of you is pretty low too, but if you’d taken the time to write something in earnest I’d at least have the courtesy not to be a prick about it, without having even read it. Just think it’s interesting that I don’t think I’ve ever said anything bad to you without you having said something first, and yet you’re the one with the chip on his shoulder when it comes to me.

#143

Some people don’t just react to things said directly to them I guess

#144

I’m not sure if this is irony or what… Anyway, I don’t think I’ve ever said anything about you to someone else (don’t even know what I’d say), but I’ll admit, I can’t remember everything I posted 2 or 3 years ago.

#145

Er, no, I meant I read your reactions to other people too.

#146

Oh, right. Lol I’m out.

#147

No fighting in here please, this is the violence thread.

14 Likes
#148

not egotistical at all, no worries.