by Guest » Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:55 pm
Howard509 wrote:For the record, I'm a pacifist. I oppose the use of violence as a political tactic.
the question of whether or not to use violence as a political tactic is the wrong question. it's an attempt to shift the burden of proving the legitimacy of one's actions from the perpetrator to the victim.
the first question to ask is, do we support resistance to victimization.
if we don't support resistance, then we're definitely pacifists. if we do support resistance, then we may or may not be pacifists.
the question then becomes, what level of resistance do we support. if the answer is, only nonviolence, then we're pacifists. if the answer is, whatever level is necessary, no more, no less, then we're not pacifists.
assuming we support resistance on a level necessary to end the victimization, the question then becomes, who is the victim.
once we determine who the victim is, it's time to act.
it's not always obvious who the victim is. see israel-palestine. if you look to the corporate media for clues, it's obvious that israel is a hapless victim of terrorism. but we all know that's a lie.
bringing it back to the abstract, if workers, who produce everything we see around us, are victimized by capitalists and their state coordinators, and if resistance to victimization is justified, and if we're not pacifists, then what action should workers take?
if workers could get capitalists and their state coordinators to stop victimizing them, simply by asking, so be it. but we know that doesn't work. look through history at all the tactics that workers have tried, to resist their victimization. nothing has worked. capitalism remains in effect and the state coordinators continue to do the bidding of capitalists. when capitalists order their state coordinators to violently crush the nonviolent efforts of workers to resist victimization, the workers are justified in responding in kind. the only people who would disagree are capitalists, their state coordinators, and pacifists. if pacifists are comfortable in said company, so be it. but don't let them claim to be in favor of anything resembling anarchy, because ultimately they're not. when push comes to shove, they favor putting their heads down and following orders. i favor workers taking control of their productive activity and resisting all attempts to stop them. i would prefer that capitalists and their state coordinators accept the offer to recant capitalism and statism and join workers in solidarity, but if they turn down that offer, then they've dug their own graves.
[quote="Howard509"]For the record, I'm a pacifist. I oppose the use of violence as a political tactic.[/quote]
the question of whether or not to use violence as a political tactic is the wrong question. it's an attempt to shift the burden of proving the legitimacy of one's actions from the perpetrator to the victim.
the first question to ask is, do we support resistance to victimization.
if we don't support resistance, then we're definitely pacifists. if we do support resistance, then we may or may not be pacifists.
the question then becomes, what level of resistance do we support. if the answer is, only nonviolence, then we're pacifists. if the answer is, whatever level is necessary, no more, no less, then we're not pacifists.
assuming we support resistance on a level necessary to end the victimization, the question then becomes, who is the victim.
once we determine who the victim is, it's time to act.
it's not always obvious who the victim is. see israel-palestine. if you look to the corporate media for clues, it's obvious that israel is a hapless victim of terrorism. but we all know that's a lie.
bringing it back to the abstract, if workers, who produce everything we see around us, are victimized by capitalists and their state coordinators, and if resistance to victimization is justified, and if we're not pacifists, then what action should workers take?
if workers could get capitalists and their state coordinators to stop victimizing them, simply by asking, so be it. but we know that doesn't work. look through history at all the tactics that workers have tried, to resist their victimization. nothing has worked. capitalism remains in effect and the state coordinators continue to do the bidding of capitalists. when capitalists order their state coordinators to violently crush the nonviolent efforts of workers to resist victimization, the workers are justified in responding in kind. the only people who would disagree are capitalists, their state coordinators, and pacifists. if pacifists are comfortable in said company, so be it. but don't let them claim to be in favor of anything resembling anarchy, because ultimately they're not. when push comes to shove, they favor putting their heads down and following orders. i favor workers taking control of their productive activity and resisting all attempts to stop them. i would prefer that capitalists and their state coordinators accept the offer to recant capitalism and statism and join workers in solidarity, but if they turn down that offer, then they've dug their own graves.