Anarchism and Violence

[Morpheus]

But, can war, which is a tool of oppression, be used to create peace?

Under certain extreme circumstances, yes. If humanity annhiliated itself in a nuclear war we would then have perpetual peace afterwards, because there would be no more humans to wage war on each other. Of course, that's not a desirable peace but it's still peace. That's one reason why I don't want peace at all costs.

[Din]

But, can war, which is a tool of oppression, be used to create peace?

Under certain extreme circumstances, yes. If humanity annhiliated itself in a nuclear war we would then have perpetual peace afterwards, because there would be no more humans to wage war on each other. Of course, that's not a desirable peace but it's still peace. That's one reason why I don't want peace at all costs.

But the animals will still be at war with one another!

[Din]

As Aaron said, to defend yourself is not aggression. Violence is an act of aggression.

What, it's impossible to defend oneself aggressively?

The only reason any side continues aggression is because it loses. (Because once war is over, the winners no longer need to be aggressive!)

What, it's impossible to be aggressive for the sake of being aggressive?

People need to learn to defend themselves. That's the point. That's the resounding point. But instead we rely on our comerads to join us in our acts of aggression.

What, it's impossible to be aggressive on one's own individual self?

Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.

Hey, don't knock fucking for virginity until you've tried it.

[Mjume!]

General nods in |Y|(| - yay)'s direction.

We can't use the tools of oppression to end oppression.

Why not? If a hammer is used to build a prison, why can't it also be used to build a house?

All tools are hardly the same. Granted, a hammer can both be used to build a prison and build a house. But, can war, which is a tool of oppression, be used to create peace?

As Aaron implied, by 'tools of oppression' I meant 'actions which are intrinsically oppressive' - I see violence is intrinsically oppressive, and so argue that it can't be used to end oppression effectively (short of under certain extreme circumstances such as the annihilation of humans, as you pointed out in your good point). A hammer isn't intrinsically oppressive, so I don't see it as a tool of oppression, even though it's possible for it to be used in an oppressive way.

[Post_industrial]

Y is getting as bad as Lucifrer now with the long winded posts.

[Guest]

stopped reading Y's posts awhile ago...

lucy is at least entertaining...

[deadflagblues]

If you can find it, I recommend all who haven't read it to take a look at Pacifism as Pathology by Ward Churchill. I don't know if there's an online text anywhere.

[Tom]

stopped reading Y's posts awhile ago...

lucy is at least entertaining...

Thats true.

[Post_industrial]

For a miniute I was actualy getting used to Y, and even though he pisses me off now and then, he was giving me a chance to debate.

However, I find it offensive that somone would demand so much of my time to read these huge threads that are all about him defending his points.

If you expect me to spend longer then 5 miniutes reading your work, it had better be a well written highly educational essay about something that means something. Its not worth the time for a point by point argument about why someone is "right" and the other person is "Wrong".

Y even wrote some shitty things about me on his blog a while back when we were talking about wether we should support "the" Iraqi insurgents. He has an extreamly offensive personality for somone who is such an advocate of non-violence. I think it might do him some good to pick up a book on non-violent communication. I personaly dont follow the tenents of non-violence in word or in deed, as I am an advocate of Self Defense and use of force under certain conditions. However, I might take him more seriously if his way of speaking more closely resembled the philosophy he advocates.

[tsihcrana laicos]

I dont believe that Anarchism is fundamentaly against Violence the same way as it is fundamentaly against Capitalism.

Agreed

Anarchism is fundamentaly against State sponsered violence. Anarchism is not fundamentaly against civil uprising, or any other form of self defense.

What about authoritarian self defense?

The same comparison cannot be made to the Anarchist uprising in Spain. Most all violence used in the Spanish uprising was in perfect harmony with the philosophy of anarchism as a general theory, though there are and have always been pacifist factions.

So when an anarchist shot someone it wasn't authoritarian to end their life? I think it was.

On what basis can anyone say that violence of any kind is inherently against any principle of anarchism, without twisting some realy strange logic?

This is how.
Others may disagree, but its my opinion that violence, unless voluntary, is exerting authority over someone. Therefore violence is archist.

I think that hierarchies try there hardest not to be defeatable through anarchistic means.

The ends are just as important as the means and the ends shape the means.

[Cobra90x]

There seems to be way to much focus put on the question of violence. I will say that it really just depends on the situation. That's it. There really is no right or wrong answer to this, it just depends on the situation.

[deadflagblues]

There seems to be way to much focus put on the question of violence. I will say that it really just depends on the situation. That's it. There really is no right or wrong answer to this, it just depends on the situation.

A noble sentiment perhaps, but it doesn't really help; it seems like this discussion is abvout trying to establish paremeters by which we, coming from the anarchist perspective, can judge those diverse situations.

[Post_industrial]

Quote:
Anarchism is fundamentaly against State sponsered violence. Anarchism is not fundamentaly against civil uprising, or any other form of self defense.

What about authoritarian self defense?

I dont think that anarchists would be suprised in any way if Authoritarian groups defended themselves with violence against libertarian factions. Anarchists would be against them for being Authoritarian, not for defending themselves. Also, it may be logical that libertarian factions would claim self defense of their livlihood, while the totalitarians would deny any wrong doing and also claim self defense. In a sense, they would both be right, depending on your perspective of the conflict.

Personaly, I am nolt opposed to one Authoritarian group defending itself from another authritarian group. There is where me, and people like Y may differ.

In Iraq, I supported the insurgents rights to self defense regardless of wether they belonged to authoritarian or libertarian factions. This is not to say that I support their Authoritarian ways, but merely that I see their act of self defense against the US as being justified.

So when an anarchist shot someone it wasn't authoritarian to end their life? I think it was.

That depends. It realy depends where you draw the line. Is talking without others consenting to listen to you authoritarian? You are forcing the liquid in their inner ear to vibrate wether they like it or not. They did not agree to hear your voice.
However, individuals should not be expected to remain silent simply becuase others do not want to hear them. Maybe sometimes its polite, but it is by no means law.


What I think you and perhaps Aaron is getting at is on the issue of privet ownership of the Self, and if such a thing a "personal space" exists. I personaly am not against the personal ownership of your shoes, your backpack, your toothbrush, and your cloths you are wearing.
My issue with privet ownership is in regard to property over the land, ownership of the means of production, and ownership of that which is vital to life (food*, Shelter*, Water*, ect).
I dont believe in communal ownership of my underwear, and I do believe in personal space.

If somone moves into my space, and tries to harm me, and my reaction is to move around them and tear the carotid artery from their throat ending their life (Assuming they were truly trying to kill me, where otherwise I met let them off with a broken arm and some serious bruises), I feel that they did this to themselves as they cleary agreed to fight me. Perhaps if they did not agree to fight me (ie, not attacking me) then perhaps it could be seen as Authoritarian.


Using violence as coercion is definitly archist. There is nothing about using the threat of violence to force others into your service that is compatible with anarchism.

Likewise, I may tend to agree with you that to end a persons life against their will to steal their money for example is an authoritarian act.

However, to kill the bosses and landlords who starve families and draft your children to die in their wars is an act of Liberation and should be encouraged wherever there is oppression.

[|Y|]

Kevin,

Before you go, would you mind giving us a specific number of days? I just want to know how long the party will last.

It was going to be for a few days but then I saw your friend Kirsten posting and I just HAD to return to post a little. Heheh. Unsurprisingly I recieved a lot of slurs, but no real responses.


Morph,

Under certain extreme circumstances, yes. If humanity annhiliated itself in a nuclear war we would then have perpetual peace afterwards, because there would be no more humans to wage war on each other. Of course, that's not a desirable peace but it's still peace. That's one reason why I don't want peace at all costs.

Oh man, that's funny shit right there! Are you an anti-humanist? And do you consider that animals fight their own little battles every single day? Or I guess you'd say that skitish moose who keep an eye out on a continual basis are at peace despite the fact that they are being hunted by a pack of wolves. What is peace to you? An absence of humanity? That really does eat the cake right there.


Din,

But the animals will still be at war with one another!

Yes, they will. Because the animal kingdom shows great extents of hierarchy. Big animals with sharp teeth eat smaller animals with duller teeth, and so on.

Just like big states with big armies attack little states with no armies. And big corporations rape the small business guys. The comparasions are so obvious.

[quoteWhat, it's impossible to defend oneself aggressively?[/quote]

Oh, you can defend yourself aggressively, but then it goes from being an act of defense for the most part, to being an act of aggression, so it's a rather stupid way to defend yourself. That's the whole point of what I'm saying. If you're aggressive, then you get your just desserts. If you kill someone who poked you in the stomach because you had a stomach ache and it hurt, then you deserve to be beat down by their family members. If someone shoots at you and you shoot back and kill them, however, you have a much more reasonable position, and they might let it go. That's the difference between reasonable self defense and aggression. It's your choice to be aggressive, but I say that if you claim to be an anarchist but are still aggressive, it's your own damn fault your behaviors perpetuate the state.

What, it's impossible to be aggressive for the sake of being aggressive?

No, I mentioned sports, for example.

What, it's impossible to be aggressive on one's own individual self?

No, but the mindset is that "let's get together and do such and such to those people," but if we were to sit down and see what we could do on our own, we'd find that our aggression is totally insignificant.

Wars aren't fought by one guy going around being a fucking asshole, it takes a lot of them.


Post_industrial,

Y is getting as bad as Lucifrer now with the long winded posts.

Um, you guys are the ones making it complicated. I'm simply responding to each and every stupid comment that is being made. If you don't want me to respond to you, then I'm sorry, but stupidity irks me.


Guest,

stopped reading Y's posts awhile ago...

lucy is at least entertaining...

Thanks for admitting it, that way when you start talking about how much you know me, I can point you in the direction of this thread, where you openly admit you've been ignoring my positions.


Post_industrial,

For a miniute I was actualy getting used to Y, and even though he pisses me off now and then, he was giving me a chance to debate.

I give everyone an opportunity to respond to me, and I generally respond to them. I do not try to make personal insults, because they're counterproductive, even though it does take a lot of strength to avoid the personality battles.

However, I find it offensive that somone would demand so much of my time to read these huge threads that are all about him defending his points.

Don't do it. I don't read other peoples threads, especially ones where two individuals are going at it in long winded posts. If you want, you can simply read the part where I address you. I address each individual for a reason you know.

If you expect me to spend longer then 5 miniutes reading your work, it had better be a well written highly educational essay about something that means something.

Everything I say means something, I do not write these huge essays using ridiculous words, I say it how I see it and that's that. Aggression is self perpetuating. That's all I'm saying. That's the crux of this discussion. If you don't think it is, then oh well, it's not that controverisal really.

He has an extreamly offensive personality for somone who is such an advocate of non-violence.

This is a fucking message board! I'm far more passive in real life, if I wasn't, I'd have a pulpit somewhere and go to protests and be a big loud mouth.

Personaly, I am nolt opposed to one Authoritarian group defending itself from another authritarian group. There is where me, and people like Y may differ.

Show me one authoritarian who isn't aggressive. I mean. Duh?

[Post_industrial]

I suppose you could be an Authoritarian Pacifist. You may belong to a culture where anyone who uses violence even in self defense is denied acceptence by the community. Such communites have generaly been the exception rather then the rule.

As far as the argument of agressive violent self defense vs passive self defense, I might be tempted to compare it to two diferent martial arts I have studied.

In Aikido they are almost pacifist. There are no attacks in Aikido, except for some realy ineffective wimpy strikes just to teach you how to grap the wrist to throw or pin the person if they attack you. However, they teah you how to evade all sorts of attacks, how to blend with the persons energy and send them flying without cuasing serious injury to that person. They call it the way of peace, or the way of harmony with nature becuase they show you how to defend yourself without causing harm to the other person. When I know someone who is a pacifist I always recomend that they study aikido so they can learn to protect themselves without violating their belief system.

I finaly decided that throwing somebody to the ground without seriously harming them is perfect for your average drunken bar fight, where the intent of the attacker is to "Kick your ass" but not to kill or maime you.

Ninjutsu on the other hand is a serious military art bassed on stealth, evasion, trickery, and the attack of vital targets. Its not like Taekwondo where they have competitions. People would die.
It wouldnt be right for me to use Ninjutsu on someone who spit in my face, tried to steel my wallet, or even threw a sloppy drunken punch at me. These people can be dealt with in a more gentle way.

However, if somone had been sent to kill me, had a gun or even a knife, Im not about to give that person the second chance to reflect on their choices by throwing them to the ground without finishing them off.

I dont realy get into fights at all actualy. I would rather avoid them if at all possible. For me personaly, violence is a last resort when all other means have failed, and your life is in danger if you do not act.
However, this is my own moral preferance, and is not bassed on my interpretation of anarchist theory, but on my own personal ideas of right and wrong.
Someone else might have a diferent set of values, and thats fine to.

And Y, that was alot freindlier that time. maybe we will actualy be able to get along.