Violence in anarchism

[Francois Tremblay]

Well because time doesn't (for me) really play into whether or not a hierarchy exists. If someone gets mugged everyday, does it matter if it's a different mugger everytime. Furthermore, does a feudal state constantly and without interruption subordinate its citizens? I wouldn't say so

Why not? I certainly think that the feudal state constantly subordinates its citizens, while the mugging is not a constant thing. It's a punctual event mostly disconnected from your identity.

And it is, if you fight off a murderer, I'd say you were justified in doing so, but it doesn't change the fact that you had to subordinate him first. If you violently recover stolen goods, you must first subordinate the thief in order to take them back.

I disagree. I do not affirm myself as the superior of any criminal, I merely affirm my desire to side with the people invaded upon. As Tucker says:

"When I describe a man as an invader, I cast no reflection upon him; I simply state a fact, Nor do I assert for a moment the moral inferiority of the invader's desire. I only declare the impossibility of simultaneously gratifying the invader's desire to invade and my desire to be let alone. That these desires are morally equal I cheerfully admit, but they cannot be equally realized. Since one must be subordinated to the other, I naturally prefer the subordination of the invader's, and am ready to co-operate with non-invasive persons to achieve that result."

No, I feel you do, I think this is more a disagreement of perception more than principle.

You said that "I think most reasonable anarchists would add "when feasible" onto their rejection of hierarchy." I do not add "when feasible." I reject all hierarchies, even parenting, which pretty much makes me a pariah amongst pariahs. If I thought that self-defense was a hierarchy, then I would be against it. But I do not believe that my values are superior or must be imposed on the attacker.

But no matter how carefully you construct your value system, there are always going to be times when you must obey one principle over another (i.e: 'How do I do no harm yet protect my family yet uphold my ideal of 'do no harm' ?")

The solution is to not hold false moral principles like "do no harm."

[Yarrow]

"When I describe a man as an invader, I cast no reflection upon him; I simply state a fact, Nor do I assert for a moment the moral inferiority of the invader's desire. I only declare the impossibility of simultaneously gratifying the invader's desire to invade and my desire to be let alone. That these desires are morally equal I cheerfully admit, but they cannot be equally realized. Since one must be subordinated to the other, I naturally prefer the subordination of the invader's, and am ready to co-operate with non-invasive persons to achieve that result."

And it is, if you fight off a murderer, I'd say you were justified in doing so, but it doesn't change the fact that you had to subordinate him first. If you violently recover stolen goods, you must first subordinate the thief in order to take them back.

I disagree.

surely you agree, saying that subordination is the key? also, how can morality exist (different argument, i know) if these two desires are morally equal?

ps. please don't take this as an insult FT, i'm just asking questions.

[joeldavis]

Why not? I certainly think that the feudal state constantly subordinates its citizens, while the mugging is not a constant thing. It's a punctual event mostly disconnected from your identity.

I would say it is very much part of your identity. Even if it only happens once, it becomes part of how people (esp. the mugger) see you. Maybe he sees you somewhere else and makes you for an easy mark?

I disagree. I do not affirm myself as the superior of any criminal, I merely affirm my desire to side with the people invaded upon.

but by siding with the invaded, aren't you implicitly denouncing the invader? Even if that were possible would it be desirable to in no way enforce moral judgements on someone.

"Since one must be subordinated to the other, I naturally prefer the subordination of the invader's, and am ready to co-operate with non-invasive persons to achieve that result."

That seems to confirm that repulsion is every bit of subordination as the invasion.

The solution is to not hold false moral principles like "do no harm."

But due to inevitable vagueness of human perception, aren't all principles, no matter how finely tuned, capable of the same fault?

[Francois Tremblay]

I would say it is very much part of your identity. Even if it only happens once, it becomes part of how people (esp. the mugger) see you. Maybe he sees you somewhere else and makes you for an easy mark?

Uh, does that actually ever happen?

but by siding with the invaded, aren't you implicitly denouncing the invader? Even if that were possible would it be desirable to in no way enforce moral judgements on someone.

I am not denouncing his values, I am denouncing his specific violent action. I would prefer that he express his values in different ways than invading on other people.

"Since one must be subordinated to the other, I naturally prefer the subordination of the invader's, and am ready to co-operate with non-invasive persons to achieve that result."

That seems to confirm that repulsion is every bit of subordination as the invasion.

No, if you read the quote carefully you'll see that he's talking about the subordination of DESIRES (what I would call "values"), not of INDIVIDUALS. Desires of invasion are less desirable than what they seek to invade upon, by their obtrusive nature, and thus must be stopped.

But due to inevitable vagueness of human perception, aren't all principles, no matter how finely tuned, capable of the same fault?

Yes, of course. That's why we need to refine our language when we talk about technical matter and try to make it as staccato as possible: one precise concept for one word. When we say something, we should be exactly sure of what we mean by it.

[Yarrow]

Uh, does that actually ever happen?

perhaps not with mugging, but every interaction with a given individual affects the next.

I am not denouncing his values, I am denouncing his specific violent action. I would prefer that he express his values in different ways than invading on other people.

but you don't KNOW his values.

That's why we need to refine our language when we talk about technical matter and try to make it as staccato as possible: one precise concept for one word. When we say something, we should be exactly sure of what we mean by it.

off topic, but i disagree. i also think that's quite unlikely- even in a small area.

[Guns]

if this has been discussed, point me to it, but has anyone else read "HOW NONVIOLENCE PROTECTS THE STATE" by Peter Gelderloos? I'm reading it now and it's an engaging work.. What a title huh? I'll have more to say when i finish it... Your thoughts?

[Francois Tremblay]

"but you don't KNOW his values."

You're missing the point: what his values are, is not relevant. No one has any business condemning anyone else's values.

[Yarrow]

but how can morality have any meaning if one's values are unimportant?

incidentally i realise why we're always at crossed swords, FT; you always make statements of opinion as if they were fact. i have a huge bone about this.

[ambi]

if this has been discussed, point me to it, but has anyone else read "HOW NONVIOLENCE PROTECTS THE STATE" by Peter Gelderloos? I'm reading it now and it's an engaging work.. What a title huh? I'll have more to say when i finish it... Your thoughts?

yes! it is much better than 'pacifism as pathology.' i just wish they would print a 2nd edition because there are some typos in the first.

No one has any business condemning anyone else's values.

i hereby condemn the values of the nazis.

[ambi]

you always make statements of opinion as if they were fact.

yarrow, you clearly didn't graduate from the ayn rand school for tots!

[Francois Tremblay]

Fuck Ayn Rand, for refusing to be rational about politics.

[Francois Tremblay]

i hereby condemn the values of the nazis.

"The nazis" is not a person. A group cannot have values, only individuals can have values. Which individual's values are you condemning and why?

[atheist_anarchist123]

Violence is definitely the answer in some cases but for the most part its not, also you could use violence that doesn't harm many/any people like bomb a police station when there is no one or 1-2 people there, violence doesn't have to hurt others. But for many cases non-violence is perfectly fine. You should never start something with violence but certainly end it with violence. For example you could start a large protest against police, you get into a verbal fight with some pig and its starting to get heated, let him throw the first punch so that you are not infringing on the pigs rights but protecting yours.

[scarydreams]

Violence is definitely the answer in some cases but for the most part its not, also you could use violence that doesn't harm many/any people like bomb a police station when there is no one or 1-2 people there, violence doesn't have to hurt others. But for many cases non-violence is perfectly fine. You should never start something with violence but certainly end it with violence. For example you could start a large protest against police, you get into a verbal fight with some pig and its starting to get heated, let him throw the first punch so that you are not infringing on the pigs rights but protecting yours.

actually that's quite well said. violence should always be a last resort, but to suggest that it doesn't have a place in todays society is naive. there are different remedies for every ailment, for some illness'..non-violent revolution just doesn't work.

[African_Prince]

A consistent anarchist would only exercise violence in self-defense (or defense of others).