Anarchist Discussion Forums

theturk wrote:The actions of objectives of Anarchy are rooted in and shout nurture a state of mind.
The mind is not violent by nature, our rational intelligence evolved beyond that a long time ago

http://www.softmachine.net

Aeon135 wrote:i know its usually apperant to people after reading posts what you flavor of anarchism is but i think it would be good to have a thread with each member stating in short terms, and id like to see who the majority are, i assume communism. i havent seen a thread like this since i joined so forgive me if this has been done

Anthony wrote:Echelon, you're rockin' the anarcho-pacifist flag so what's your take on it? Do you limit pacifism to self-defense or do you try to be as non-violent as possible and avoid violence at all costs?

Anthony wrote:Anarcho-communist.

Anyway, as for the violence discussion, I believe that violence is only necessary when it is used for self-defense. Violence is used by the State as the last option (or first in some cases) of coercion. Therefore, I believe that any form of violence that does not relate to self-defense will simply sink us down into a hole that we will have a very difficult time getting out of. People already misunderstand anarchists enough as it is, and non-violence will not only enlighten them to the pacifist nature of (most) anarchists, but will perhaps show them that the media is 100% wrong.

A grey area for me, however, is political violence. There is the idea that we are fighting the "system" of the state, not the people inside of it. Don't get me wrong, if I had the chance I would have killed Hitler if I was alive back then, but I think if we attempted any form of political violence to help overthrow the State, it would not reach the outcome that we hope for. I can assume that any attempt against a head of State would simply lead to another being appointed, thus repeating the pattern. The outcome of this would simply be Anarchists being terrorists (I'm 99.99% sure they'd slap that label on us).

In addition to this, I am not for vandalism such as breaking windows of cars or shops (cars more so because they are possessions, not property) because it completely works against what we are trying to preach. While we hate the idea of property, the shop-owners do not know why; they simply see it as rioting and vandalism without a rationale.

pewtercitybrock wrote:Not necessarily. Violence isn't desirable but I don't think you can deny that it has a place. I define violence as both. To be clear, I'm against all forms of coercion, which is why I said violence is too exploitable and too corruptible.

Ghandi and others similar to him (I.E MLK) are admirable and I respect their achievements but to say they didn't use violence is a bit of a misnomer, in my opinion. Yeah, these guys were never violent and never hurt anybody directly but they did seek to use violence in their movements. Ghandi's WWI recruitment's were going to result in what? MLK used the violence of his opponents against them.

That is what I mean when I say that violence isn't desirable but it does have its place. That doesn't necessarily mean that I advocate it.

Echelon wrote:

pewtercitybrock wrote:I think most movements for social and political change would justify violence in some form. Personally, I think while violence can be useful and has its place, it's largely something that is too exploitable, too corruptible.

Really? So do you think the ends justifies the means?
Also how would you define violence; against people or property?

There's a quote by Camus; 'There are causes worth dying for, but none worth killing for'. I take this sort of line.

Also look at someone like Gandhi, a prime example in which social and political change was achieved without violence.

pewtercitybrock wrote:I think most movements for social and political change would justify violence in some form. Personally, I think while violence can be useful and has its place, it's largely something that is too exploitable, too corruptible.