Violence in anarchism

[i used to lurk]

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.

No I’m trying to reduce state violence through nonviolent means.

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.

Agent provocateur

a person employed by the police or other law enforcement body to act undercover and entice or provoke another person to commit an illegal act.

Take the hint!

[donny]

seeing as the government uses violence and imprisonment to scare us into following their laws, it doesnt seem all that unconditional to use violence to fight back against them, no man working for the government that has been working for them for his whole life is going to just lay down his gun and say "hey you anarchists make a good point i think il let you take down what i've been born into and tought since i was a kid"
violence can be nessicary to netralize those who have closed minds to alternatives
expecialy the ones working for the government.
i do relize the possable set backs on it with the whole discrediting the group commiting violent acts because they attacked somone who was "socialy acceptably violent"

socialy acceptably violent: a person who commits violent acts but is not seen as a criminal or violent because the act of violence they commited was somthing the class citizens have seen to be acceptable in society

[Francois Tremblay]

It is very easy to prove that Anarchists who use violence are in fact not Anarchists, by virtue of simple logic.

One of the definitions of the State is a mode of operation by which violence committed by its own agents is labeled as legitimate, and violence committed by anyone else is labeled illegitimate.

An Anarchist who uses violence presumably believes that:
1. The State's own violence is not legitimate.
2. That his own use of violence is legitimate.

But this places him squarely as an ideological statist. Therefore it is logically impossible for an Anarchist to remain an Anarchist if he uses violence and believes in violence.

[Mike Gogulski]

It is very easy to prove that Anarchists who use violence are in fact not Anarchists, by virtue of simple logic.

One of the definitions of the State is a mode of operation by which violence committed by its own agents is labeled as legitimate, and violence committed by anyone else is labeled illegitimate.

An Anarchist who uses violence presumably believes that:
1. The State's own violence is not legitimate.
2. That his own use of violence is legitimate.

But this places him squarely as an ideological statist. Therefore it is logically impossible for an Anarchist to remain an Anarchist if he uses violence and believes in violence.

With respect, this reasoning fails utterly.

Not all anarchists are pacifists. The key question to address in determining whether or not a given act of violence (or threat thereof, or fraud) is legitimate is to examine whether that act was or was not initiatory violence. Initiatory violence is condemned, while other violence might be acceptable. If Smith points a gun at Jones and demands Jones's money, Jones may be justified in using violence in retaliation to defend his person and his property. Likewise, Jones may be justified in chasing down Smith later on and using violence to compel him to surrender what was stolen from him. There are pacifist anarchists who would condemn Jones's act of violence in any case, be it retaliatory or retributive, and I and many others would not class ourselves among them.

The state and statism don't even enter into the ethical calculus thus far. The legitimacy of Jones's violence is a moral question that can be examined even in the absence of states.

There are many anarchists, I believe, who justify the use of violence in certain circumstances.

The psychopathic Stirnerite egoist might say that his initiation violence is an expression of his inviolable will, and therefore legitimate. The psychopathic Randroid might say that his initiation of violence is an expression of the noble qualities of Man. The nihilist might just want to blow things up for the sake of causing chaos. All of these should be condemned, as they violate the principle I outlined above. Even so, holding even these extreme beliefs would not make them cease to be anarchists or become statists. They would still be ordinary criminals if they followed through on their intent.

Yet different anarchists may commit acts of violence against the agents or property of the state, rationalizing it to be consistent with the non-aggression principle since it can be seen as retaliatory or retributive.

As a simple example, imagine an isolated population in a small farming village in the middle ages. One day a gang of armed men march into your village demanding the village pay tribute to some far-away king the villagers have never heard of, and are ready to put to the sword any person who resists or fails to pay. Having well mugged the villagers and deprived them of their property, the thugs march away, only to be ambushed by an advance party of villagers on the road. Are those villagers justified in using violence to reclaim what was stolen from them? I say yes. Are they further justified in marching to the imperial capital and demanding the king's head? Again I say yes!

Of course, extending this argument to acts of violence against the state in the present context is a tricky proposition, and even more so to violent acts against, for example, Macy's shop windows, as were under discussion recently in other places.

A bit more of my own view on the subject can be found here

[joeldavis]

There are pacifist anarchists who would condemn Jones's act of violence in any case, be it retaliatory or retributive, and I and many others would not class ourselves among them.

So you would be fine with escalating Hatfield and McCoy scenarios? I'm all for minimal violence in rational self-defense, but no act of violence should be seen as a first option. I say, reclaim property, defend oneself, anything beyond that is the initiation of violence. It's hierarchical, it's uncivilized, and ultimately not productive to anyone involved.

The nihilist might just want to blow things up for the sake of causing chaos.

What you're referring to was the nihlists' desire to destroy the current order and let a new one organically develop. This is hardly the same as just wanting chaos.

Are those villagers justified in using violence to reclaim what was stolen from them? I say yes. Are they further justified in marching to the imperial capital and demanding the king's head? Again I say yes!

You almost had me at the first part, the reclaiming of property stolen. If it forces you to use a certain minimum amount of violence, I could see myself saying that was alright. But then you lost me when you said that people not directly involved should be violently punished. There are other ways of dealing with these problems than brute force. The logic you're outlining is the germ from which things like tribal feuds and the Hatfield-McCoy situation spring from.

[Mike Gogulski]

So you would be fine with escalating Hatfield and McCoy scenarios?

Of course not. If Hatfield violates McCoy, McCoy is justified in retaliation. Hatfield is not justified in retaliating in turn.

Are those villagers justified in using violence to reclaim what was stolen from them? I say yes. Are they further justified in marching to the imperial capital and demanding the king's head? Again I say yes!

You almost had me at the first part, the reclaiming of property stolen. If it forces you to use a certain minimum amount of violence, I could see myself saying that was alright. But then you lost me when you said that people not directly involved should be violently punished. There are other ways of dealing with these problems than brute force. The logic you're outlining is the germ from which things like tribal feuds and the Hatfield-McCoy situation spring from.

Fortunately there are other ways to deal with such problems. I don't suggest that brute force might be the best way, and indeed I wouldn't much care to live in a society where the only mechanism existing for settling disputes was force. But that isn't the question that I was addressing.

[joeldavis]

Of course not. If Hatfield violates McCoy, McCoy is justified in retaliation. Hatfield is not justified in retaliating in turn.

But each side perceived itself as the victims. What I'm saying is that unless you think you can perform the act of violence without causing fatality or serious bodily injury and that the material loss is worth it, then it's better to just cut your losses ("There will be other trinkets for us to buy later" or to have an insurance policy or something set up for the matter, or maybe you can play economic politics and punish the people that way, etc) than to engage in a feud.

Fortunately there are other ways to deal with such problems. I don't suggest that brute force might be the best way, and indeed I wouldn't much care to live in a society where the only mechanism existing for settling disputes was force. But that isn't the question that I was addressing.

But isn't violence (being hierarchical) antithetical to anarchism? In which case the point stands because the perp who uses violence to get what they want doesn't want to abolish hierarchy but just wants to be the guy at the top of it.

[Mike Gogulski]

Joel, surely you realize that I'm the same individual you're ripping up over at the Anarchism sub-Reddit for not being against "all authority", right?

[joeldavis]

Yes and I'm not ripping into you for that, I'm ripping into the underlying assumption that your point of view takes for granted.

But that still doesn't detract from what I'm saying. Surely even you would say the hierarchy violence protects is illegitimate?

[Mike Gogulski]

Yes and I'm not ripping into you for that, I'm ripping into the underlying assumption that your point of view takes for granted.

Which assumption would that be, precisely?

But that still doesn't detract from what I'm saying. Surely even you would say the hierarchy violence protects is illegitimate?

Smith mugging Jones doesn't create a hierarchy. Neither does Jone's retribution against Smith. Smith's mugging of Jones is, itself, illegitimate, without respect to any consideration of hierarchy.

[joeldavis]

Which assumption would that be, precisely?

we can have that discussion on reddit.

Smith mugging Jones doesn't create a hierarchy. Neither does Jone's retribution against Smith. Smith's mugging of Jones is, itself, illegitimate, without respect to any consideration of hierarchy.

What does legitimacy have to do with hierarchy? That's like saying "That's not a basketball because my birthday's in June." The mugging does create a hierarchy. It wouldn't be a mugging if it were voluntary, and if someone can make you submit to their will without your consent, how is that not hierarchy (with them in the dominant position.)

[Francois Tremblay]

How is a mugging the creation of a hierarchy? Who is the superior and who is the inferior? What are the commands? What power or wealth is being centralized?

[Mike Gogulski]

Smith mugging Jones doesn't create a hierarchy. Neither does Jone's retribution against Smith. Smith's mugging of Jones is, itself, illegitimate, without respect to any consideration of hierarchy.

What does legitimacy have to do with hierarchy? That's like saying "That's not a basketball because my birthday's in June." The mugging does create a hierarchy. It wouldn't be a mugging if it were voluntary, and if someone can make you submit to their will without your consent, how is that not hierarchy (with them in the dominant position.)

A hierarchy is a system of authority, regardless of whether or not the authority is voluntary or involuntary. The mugging does not create an authority, it creates a crime, a violation of rights. If other people observe the mugging and say "it is right, let it be thus", that collective observation might lend the mugging some authority which it could not have of itself, absent that observation. Likewise, if others observe the mugging and condemn it, no authority is lent thereto.

This, indeed, is part of the mechanism by which I believe the state arises. But it is not the mugging -- the act of violence -- in itself that must be considered, but how it fits into the social context. Where Smith is initiating force to violate Jones, he commits a crime and creates no hierarchy so long as others do not lend his crime legitimacy. If Jones retaliates to defend himself or to right the wrong post hoc, he commits no crime. In most cases, Smith, the robber, goes away with his ill-gotten gain and never meets Jones again. If Jones captures Smith and exacts his retribution, he has no further claim against or quarrel with Smith, and equality is restored.

If you want to argue against this, go right ahead. I should warn you, though, that doing so is the equivalent of trying to convince me that I ought not hold beliefs, or that my own will ought to have zero social value. Piss. Wind. Jelly. Tree. Up to you.

[Mike Gogulski]

How is a mugging the creation of a hierarchy? Who is the superior and who is the inferior? What are the commands? What power or wealth is being centralized?

And this is yet another useful perspective on the question. There needn't be a hierarchy to recognize a crime.

I'm curious, though, Francois, to know how you might respond to my rebuttal against pacifism above. I had a variant of this argument with a committed statist this evening, and I'd be grateful for friendlier thinking! (not that you owe anyone such, of course!)

[ambi]

pacifism is a state-created, state-sponsored disease. lowlife egomaniac fucktards like gandhi and king are the delivery mechanisms.

if someone wants to equate violence exclusively with statism, they are being subservient to the state, relegating self-defense and the defense of others as somehow "not anarchist" - the state just loves the heroes of pacifism for just that reason, even naming streets after them.

furthermore, pacifists, through their non-action, are extremely violent. the historical accomplishments accredited to them were, in fact, won with violence, not pacifism. and speaking subjectively, i've never met one that wasn't in actuality a violent, abusive jerk.