Violence in anarchism

[bootlog]

Violence.

What do you guys think about anarchism and violence? I didnt look up old posts cause if there were it would be a good idea to kick up the conversation again (I think). I really believe that violence is VERY justifiable and that working with the government or simply acting passively against it, so i cannot accept anything in the middle. I really think im right on this and i would like to hear some opinions from someon who thinks that violence is not an option.

: )

BTW lets make this my welcoming post hahah. First thread : P hello everyone.

[Insecuritykiller]

Violence usually hurts more then it helps. But in certain circumstances, violence can be useful.

Certainly if one had the numbers to topple a state they should, but only if they had the support of the rest of the society. Otherwise re-building could be hard.

[i mostly lurk]

I’m not one to rule out violence altogether, I’d say it depends on the situation. Imo, at the present time in the western democracies violence would lead to certain failure and the discrediting of the movement.

[BulimicMind]

Violence should only ever be used in extreme cases where you yourself are directly threatened w/ murder or slavery.
Anything else is not only archistic, but counterproductive, as history has shown time and time again.
Where possible, means should always agree w/ ends.

[bootlog]

does that mean that you guys would support passing laws that help your cause? or putting pressure on government groups to forward your cause, as a resort to non violence?

[i used to lurk]

does that mean that you guys would support passing laws that help your cause? or putting pressure on government groups to forward your cause, as a resort to non violence?

That question covers a lot of ground. I’d have to say that it depends. If you were to give some specifics I could probably give you a more definite answer.

[naoko]

I am opposed to authoritarianism and that includes authoritarian tactics.

[bootlog]

does that mean that you guys would support passing laws that help your cause? or putting pressure on government groups to forward your cause, as a resort to non violence?

That question covers a lot of ground. I’d have to say that it depends. If you were to give some specifics I could probably give you a more definite answer.

ok ill give you two examples. one is a none real world example, the other one is.

1. For some reason, people are starting to hate lampposts on the street because everyone got tired of having lit streets, although you and your two adjacent neighbors would like to have the street in front of your house lit. would you pressure the government to not pass the law?

2. government is passing a new law that says people should have prettier houses because the whole neighborhood is very run down. you also wish that your neighborhood did look prettier. would you support the government?

[bootlog]

the reason i ask this is:

are you willing to try and take control of the institutionalized violence in government (if you do not support a law then you dont pay taxes, then you go into jail and if you refuse you get killed) just to pass a law, as good as it seems? because you are still using violence. you are still imposing something.

in other words, i think that if you use the nonviolent strategy (not that its the only one) of just trying to get state support, youre not being nonviolent because you are just using violence under another name which is more socially acceptable.

again in other words, are you willing to support a mafia in its decision to plant trees in your neighborhood, after having charged you taxes? and that same mafia will threaten anyone who doesnt want the trees there. there is no need to make a difference between government and mafia. however "good" its actions may be its still violent.

so actually opposing the state in any form is a real form of non violence. in some cases self defense from the state, for example beating up a cop who is disrespecting your rights, might sometimes be nonviolent, instead of letting those things just go through.

sorry for the mess i write very bad hope you got the message : P

[i used to lurk]

Your posts read like you are an anarcho-capitalist or libertarian or objectivist (ayn rand).

Ownership of property

I’m not talking about your underwear or toothbrush or your TV set, I’m talking about REAL property also called REALTY.

I don’t believe in private ownership of land, ALL LAND should/is owned in common by ALL PEOPLE. It is important to understand that this notion does not preclude the private use of land. People should be able to have tracts of land for private use. Land for private used includes (but not necessarily limited to) a place to put private dwellings or to farm or to set up a shoe repair shop for example. Please note that private use of land IS NOT ownership of land.

However the private use of land which is OWNED IN COMMON should have conditions attached to it. The guiding principle behind theses conditions, is that the land is used in a manner that BENEFITS SOCIETY and not just the person who is in position of it. It is good for people to have a place that they can call home, so private dwellings and the land they are on benefits everyone. A factory placed on land which produces useful goods benefits society provided the negatives like pollution and exploitation of workers doesn’t out weigh the good.

The best way that a society can determine what conditions should be attached to private use of land (WHICH IS OWNED IN COMMON) is through direct democracy. If people democratically decide that rent (read as taxes if you must) is a condition of private use then so be it.

The rule of law

The big idea behind “the rule of lawâ€

[bootlog]

Heh im actually an a-com but the argument was put forward by an a-cap and i didnt see why couldnt it be applied to free association.

I also agree with your points of view on property and law, in fact i share them, but i am referring to nowadays society, living under government.

would you do any kind of civil disobedience under this government (which was not made through free association, since you cant opt out nor sign in, just born into this government) like breaking the law not just only disobeying but explicitly breaking it (like beating up a cop) (btw not that im some kind of chaos punk, its just a good example of something "bad")

again, with the same two examples, the prettier houses and lampposts.

i think, personally and until now (my opinion on this is just recently created) that its not ok to follow any laws that the government passes simply because i didnt actually have an option when choosing the govt. i couldnt vote, there was no social contract to sign and i certainly couldnt opt out of it. if i was able to sign, and there were laws, i wouldnt break them. but this is an infringment of rights isnt it? in this particular case where government tells me what to do.

[i used to lurk]

As I’ve said before, I favor peaceful evolution over violent revolution.

btw not that im some kind of chaos punk, its just a good example of something "bad"

Ok you’re not a chaos punk, but if you keep talking about breaking the law and beating cops someone might get the impression that you’re an agent provocateur.

[theeternaliam]

Feeling the need to attack another implies that I believe in their force, that they have any real power over me. No government, no person, no entity, has any real power. I believe in equality, and that it's opposite is not possible. There is nothing to attack. Freedom is Unconditional, Inevitable.

[bootlog]

but can you see that acting through current laws is actually violent simply because the actual government is not legitimate?

so in some cases civil disobedience can be tolerated because of this.

again, if by peaceful evolution you mean the degradation of a state that becomes more liberal each time until its dissapearance, you are still trying to use that state violence.

im simply making the difference between laws born out of free association and laws born out of violence.

[bootlog]

Feeling the need to attack another implies that I believe in their force, that they have any real power over me. No government, no person, no entity, has any real power. I believe in equality, and that it's opposite is not possible. There is nothing to attack. Freedom is Unconditional, Inevitable.

if a policeman points a gun at you, telling you to pay taxes, and when you refuse he drags you into prison, does he still have no power over you? the power that government has is very real, not something that we nor most of the people in the world can just step out of.