|
The argument that destruction and terror are part of revolution I do not dispute. I know that in the past every great political and social change necessitated violence... Black slavery might still be a legalized institution in the United States but for the militant spirit of the John Browns. I have never denied that violence is inevitable, nor do I gainsay it now. Yet it is one thing to employ violence in combat, as a means of defense. It is quite another thing to make a principle of terrorism, to institutionalize it, to assign it the most vital place in the social struggle. Such terrorism begets counter-revolution and in turn itself becomes counter-revolutionary. - Emma Goldman, preface to My Disillusionment in Russia, 1925 Disclaimer: The purpose of this thread is to attempt to discuss the concept of political violence against the state, without advocating for it, because that is illegal and would probably bring trouble to Lowtax. We don't want that. I feel however that there are lots of ways we could have a constructive discussion about the theory of political violence. We could talk about its history, about its effects, maybe even about non-violent action against the state - wherever the discussion leads us as long as it is not advocacy or incitement of violence. If this thread is not gassed, which I hope, I'm pretty sure that the mods will keep an eye on it so I suspect advocating for political violence ITT will probably end up in probations or worse. Maybe some discussion of the legitimacy of violence against the state given certain conditions could be okay if it stays in a vacuum and doesn't name names or make any reference to current regimes. I dunno. Be careful. The purpose of this thread: Political violence is an umbrella term that covers a myriad different concepts ranging from war to terrorism and from prison violence to genocide. Since I'm not really interested in a retread of previous threads regarding war (we all know it is good for absolutely nothing anyway) or police brutality or ethnic conflict or prison or the death penalty, I would like us to focus on political violence by individual actors or groups against states, governments, politicians, political structures, you name it. Basically, what the little guy does to stick it to the big guy: destruction of property, rioting, rebellion, assassination, revolution, terrorism, and so on. This OP is not going to be very well thought out, because I'm mostly making this thread in order to sate my own curiosity on this topic, to get y'all's opinions on a bunch of questions, and to read theory. I have very little theoretical background on violence - most of the stuff I've read is focused on non-violence and it's mostly 101 level, that's why I'd welcome articles, books, references, authors, whatever you've got. To get the ball rolling: To start our discussion, I would like us to discuss the effectiveness of violence against the state in order to achieve political goals. History certainly seems to show that violence has worked in the past at inducing or hastening change in certain instances. The classic example of this is that the Black Panther Party, the many race riots in the 60's and the rioting following MLK's assassination definitely had as much if not more impact on the passage of the Civil Rights Act in the US as MLK's movement itself. Rioting in general looks like it can be pretty effective: it brought regime change in Tunisia and Egypt in 2011 and in Burkina Faso in 2014, it brought down the government in Ukraine in 2014, it brought the minimum wage up by 25% and wages in general by 10% in France in 1968. Sometimes, though, riots fail at accomplishing their goals: the situation in Tibet hasn't changed much since the 2008 riots, the results of the 2009 election in Iran weren't thrown out despite the massive riots, thousands were killed in Morocco in 1981 and 1990 for very little in return. What makes a riot successful at obtaining meaningful reform, what makes it turn into a revolution? Is it merely the government's lack of will to respond with even greater violence? Is there a delicate balance of violence that can make governments afraid, but not afraid enough to send in the army with guns blazing? By contrast, I feel like assassination has almost never succeeded in bringing change - the only instance I can think of of an assassination that actually worked at changing the system would be Luis Carrero Blanco's assassination in Francoist Spain, which led to the democratic transition. But most assassinations of political figures seem to have either had little effect, or radically backfired. Are there any good examples of "successful" assassinations? Has propaganda by the deed ever strengthened anarchist movements? Finally, terrorism: can we all agree that Bin Laden was extremely successful? Joking aside, it seems like terrorism is often a crucial component of anti-colonialist groups' actions, as shown in Ireland, Algeria, Angola, and a myriad other countries - and yet it doesn't seem to be as successful for separatist movements such as the corsican FLNC or left-wing paramilitary movements such as ETA, IRA, or Shining Path. Can terrorist groups ever win through attrition outside of independence struggles? Also of interest to me is the apparent delegitimation of violent means of action in the last five or so decades in the West. Not that violence was ever really celebrated by politicians and the media (with the obvious exception of fascists) - I just feel that such means of action have become even more taboo in our outwardly pacified societies. Is this true? Is there any literature on this topic? Apologies for the lack of structure in this post, I'm having trouble organizing my own thoughts on this topic, and I'd welcome anything solid - inasmuch that it is possible to have an all-encompassing opinion on the use of violence in political struggle. I will leave you with a link to an essay I read recently called How Nonviolence Protects the State. Perhaps this is also a good way to examine the notion of violence: by comparing it to non-violence and examining how each method has brought significant results within the context of a conflict.
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
Man are the RCMP getting lazy these days.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
How do you do, fellow leftists?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
Propaganda by the deed was always a feature of the minority movement within anarchism known as insurrectionary anarchism. The broader anarchist communist movement use labor mobilization and direct action to get the goods, which tends to work a lot better. Why do something that will get you either a bullet or life in prison when you can participate in actions with thousands of people and get actual results? That's not to say nonviolence works or doesn't protect the state, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 11:09
|
|
|
Not directly tied to that topic, but I sometimes wonder if it wasn't possible to change the view on violence by the state. For example, if the government cuts benefits to disabled people so much they can barely afford medicine or food, is that not a violent act? And if so, would't the person affected by this dilemma have a good cause to defend their dignity and health? However, if someone would theoretically act violent against the state, their actions will be quickly framed by lots of people in a negative light. Perhaps this is where to start instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
lllllllllllllllllll posted:Not directly tied to that topic, but I sometimes wonder if it wasn't possible to change the view on violence by the state. For example, if the government cuts benefits to disabled people so much they can barely afford medicine or food, is that not a violent act? And if so, would't the person affected by this dilemma have a good cause to defend their dignity and health? However, if someone would theoretically act violent against the state, their actions will be quickly framed by lots of people in a negative light. Perhaps this is where to start instead. You do, amusingly, have people who do this, but they're libertarians and mostly just do it re: taxes and age of consent laws 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
lllllllllllllllllll posted:Not directly tied to that topic, but I sometimes wonder if it wasn't possible to change the view on violence by the state. For example, if the government cuts benefits to disabled people so much they can barely afford medicine or food, is that not a violent act? lllllllllllllllllll posted:However, if someone would theoretically act violent against the state, their actions will be quickly framed by lots of people in a negative light. Perhaps this is where to start instead. OwlFancier posted:You do, amusingly, have people who do this, but they're libertarians and mostly just do it re: taxes and age of consent laws The difference is a Libertarian will always do it even if the government is directly helping them. One thing that I've been troubled by is whether or not using violence against governments(and companies) that cause climate change falls under justified violence given the current body of evidence it's almost a guarantee (compared to how we view terrorism violence from the past that had positive outcomes) that it will be absolved by history as the effects of climate change get worse but is it justified to use violence preemptively? Things like if the law is no longer compatible with life is it still a law?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2019 13:27
|
|
|
Flannelette posted:One thing that I've been troubled by is whether or not using violence against governments(and companies) that cause climate change falls under justified violence given the current body of evidence it's almost a guarantee (compared to how we view terrorism violence from the past that had positive outcomes) that it will be absolved by history as the effects of climate change get worse but is it justified to use violence preemptively? Things like if the law is no longer compatible with life is it still a law? I mean legally self defence laws usually operate on whether you believe your life is in danger. You don't have to wait for them to shoot first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2019 13:31
|
|
|
lllllllllllllllllll posted:Not directly tied to that topic, but I sometimes wonder if it wasn't possible to change the view on violence by the state. For example, if the government cuts benefits to disabled people so much they can barely afford medicine or food, is that not a violent act? And if so, would't the person affected by this dilemma have a good cause to defend their dignity and health? However, if someone would theoretically act violent against the state, their actions will be quickly framed by lots of people in a negative light. Perhaps this is where to start instead. People who argue that the correct response to legislation they don't like is violence instead of lobbying are rightly condemned as crazy people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
AGGGGH BEES posted:People who argue that the correct response to legislation they don't like is violence instead of lobbying are rightly condemned as crazy people. are you seriously implying that legislation by some magic property can't be created by crazy people to do evil things or did you miss the entirety of the last century OR are you just implying that democracy always works against it because then i'm pretty sure you missed the entirety of the last century please advise
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
AGGGGH BEES posted:People who argue that the correct response to legislation they don't like is violence instead of lobbying are rightly condemned as crazy people. Well, for starters, the argument was that policies that maintain an economic order that keeps the many in relative destitution through institutions such as the police and/or the army is violent, which I don’t think can be disputed. Then there’s the question of whether violence by the state warrants violence in return, which certainly can’t be roundly condemned as crazy talk, because examples abound of truly horrid and violent policies enacted by governments that any morally sound person should resist through more than lobbying of all things, and I’m fairly certain you can conjure up a couple all by yourself. E: Flannelette posted:One thing that I've been troubled by is whether or not using violence against governments(and companies) that cause climate change falls under justified violence given the current body of evidence it's almost a guarantee (compared to how we view terrorism violence from the past that had positive outcomes) that it will be absolved by history as the effects of climate change get worse but is it justified to use violence preemptively? Things like if the law is no longer compatible with life is it still a law? Flowers For Algeria fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Jan 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:By contrast, I feel like assassination has almost never succeeded in bringing change - the only instance I can think of of an assassination that actually worked at changing the system would be Luis Carrero Blanco's assassination in Francoist Spain, which led to the democratic transition. But most assassinations of political figures seem to have either had little effect, or radically backfired. Are there any good examples of "successful" assassinations? Has propaganda by the deed ever strengthened anarchist movements? This is an interesting point. One interesting point about assassinations is that on the surface, they're easier to morally justify than other forms of political violence. Not only is the person being assassinated usually someone the assassin considers morally guilty (hence purely punitive assassinations such as the Operation Nemesis killings of the organizers of the Armenian Genocide*), but the killing of an individual to effect changes involving enormous numbers of lives is very appealing in utilitarian terms. Charlotte Corday made the utilitarian argument explicitly: "I have killed one man to save a hundred thousand." The problem is that, as you note, assassinations often backfire or accomplish little. Wikipedia observes that in Corday's case, "The direct consequence of her crime were opposite to what she expected: The assassination did not stop the Jacobins or the Terror, which intensified after the murder." I can, however, think of several examples of assassinations that more or less achieved the assassins' goals, although the goals in question were often bad ones. One can use the tendency to backfire to one's advantage with the false flag assassination. If, as many have suspected, Hutu Power extremists were behind the assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana, then the subsequent Rwandan Genocide makes the assassination a particularly monstrous "success." If, on the other hand, the Rwandan Patriotic Front committed the assassination in order to take power in Rwanda, then the assassination was nevertheless a "success" for the RPF in the long run. * Operation Nemesis may also have had a preemptive intent; in theory, it could have had a deterrent effect on people contemplating genocide in the future. However, Hitler's infamous remark, "Who today remembers the Armenians?," suggests that it had no such effect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 05:33
|
|
|
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand did eventually culminate in the cession of Serbian parts of Austria-Hungary and the creation of Yugoslavia, which was the conspirators' goal. There were some unintended side effects however.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 07:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand did eventually culminate in the cession of Serbian parts of Austria-Hungary and the creation of Yugoslavia, which was the conspirators' goal. Nitpick: While the conspirators were nationalist (former socialists and anarchists who believed that non-Slavic parts of Austria-Hungary were comfortable being shat on by the government and the rich as long as Slavs were being shat on more, and weren't going to lift a finger to help), and did in fact perceive Serbia as the only realistic vector of freeing Bosnia from Austro-Hungarian rule, they weren't all Serbian nationalists, and weren't even majorily Serbian. Austria-Hungary's press altered the names of a number of conspirators to make them sound more Serbian in order to help foster anti-Serbian sentiment (something AH had been doing for a while, because it had been planning to invade Serbia for a long time, it wasn't a spur of the moment thing), and due to how history panned out, this bit of propaganda ended up being accepted worldwide (including Serbia later on, because "Hell yeah, WE did it, WE are MASTERMINDS of 4th dimension chess"). There's a surviving series of prison interviews with Gavrilo Princip which show that the conspirators were worried about a large scale war errupting in Europe, and were desperate to trigger some kind of revolt in Austria-Hungary before it got dragged into it, with devastating consequences. The Black Hand were proto-fashy assholes, but even they didn't expect things to work out that way, they basically handed out guns to anyone willing to stir poo poo in Austria-Hungary, and were caught by surprise when Young Bosnia shot the heir to the throne.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 11:44
|
|
|
I mean I'm not happy about it but I do think there are Valid Reasons why the electoral left in Israel and Turkey are flag-kissing, general-hugging, State-exalting moderate fash. They see the alternative that other people are proposing as, hey, let's blow up a convoy, that works, right? Doesn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2019 05:51
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:regime change Flowers For Algeria posted:in Tunisia and Egypt in 2011 and in Burkina Faso in 2014, it brought down the government in Ukraine in 2014 Flowers For Algeria posted:it brought the minimum wage up by 25% and wages in general by 10% in France in 1968. Flowers For Algeria posted:situation in Tibet hasn't changed much since the 2008 riots Flowers For Algeria posted:the results of the 2009 election in Iran weren't thrown out despite the massive riots Flowers For Algeria posted:What makes a riot successful at obtaining meaningful reform
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2019 06:13
|
|
|
chesnok posted:
I don't know much about these power transfers, but my initial instinct is to distrust your claims of the external origin of the unrest. Can you explain what makes it so blatant that external powers were behind the unrest? What extensive political and economic measures are you referring to? Sanctions? Something else? Is your main thesis that violence against the state can only achieve meaningful results when backed by an armed force or external powers?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2019 08:35
|
|
|
communism cannot and will not work
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2019 11:24
|
|
|
hi avs
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2019 11:25
|
|
|
I think this is an interesting idea that probably will flame out quickly. I think those of you who are just coming here to threadshit should stop. I also don't foresee this thread having a long shelf-life given the topic matter, this topic does not lend itself well to an online-text based format in the age of constant government surveillance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
Violence is never the best option but sometimes it's the only option that has a realistic chance of success.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
Doesn't every single bloody revolution turn things more conservative, and result in a loss of liberty?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2019 02:55
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:the results of the 2009 election in Iran weren't thrown out despite the massive riots chesnok posted:riots were only massive in western lie-o-rama tv reports حلال زاده
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2019 03:39
|
|
|
KomeradeCanadian posted:Doesn't every single bloody revolution turn things more conservative, and result in a loss of liberty? This is a soft ball setup for an edgelord response but the american revolution didn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2019 03:45
|
|
|
posting in Farsi in the political violence thread- hello to my hamvatanân at the NSA
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2019 03:46
|
|
|
chesnok posted:
Do tell in what way external powers orchestrated unrest in Tunisia? Was Mohamed Bouazizi part of the French secret service? Also what coup happened in Tunisia? Ben Ali left almost on his own on like the fifth flight out of Tunis and the following government was under normal constitutional proceedings, just like if Ben Ali had suddenly died in office. E: I agree with most of the rest of your post though, and think the OP conflating "riots" with "protests" and "demonstrations" is bizarre. Riots are overwhelmingly counterproductive since it means the people on the streets will quickly become exclusively young men, who tend to become cannon fodder with little political consequences for a dictatorial regime. Any protest movement consisting of 95%+ young men on the streets is going to be totally hosed for doing anything other than inciting civil war. Saladman fucked around with this message at 11:43 on Apr 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2019 11:34
|
|
|
KomeradeCanadian posted:Doesn't every single bloody revolution turn things more conservative, and result in a loss of liberty? No, not at all. The Spanish third republic (although you could argue that the bloodshed was fought against a revolution, as the third republic was legitimately elected - I'd say it counts, as a lot of the revolutionary policies were made from the bottom up, ignoring the new government) abolished wage inequality, reformed land and instated freedom of assembly, press and local democracy. Same counts for Russia during the civil war, at least until Lenin and Trotsky and their murderous cronies took over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2019 11:44
|
|
|
AGGGGH BEES posted:People who argue that the correct response to legislation they don't like is violence instead of lobbying are rightly condemned as crazy people. Like famous crazy man Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
KomeradeCanadian posted:Doesn't every single bloody revolution turn things more conservative, and result in a loss of liberty? The results of revolutions, much like electoral campaigns, tend to be disappointing
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
In France, the revolution did away with "the old overlapping jurisdictions, the confusions and the compromises inherited from, the thousand-year struggle" between Crown and feudal nobility. Weights and measure "that varied from region to region, indeed from town to town" were replaced with the metric system. Also gone was non-decimal coinage unsuited "for long division". Some antiquated practices were also eliminated in England. Remaining essentially "untouched" were day-to-day social relations between husband and wife and children. Attempts at establishing new religions and personal habits come to naught. The revolutions' "results look rather petty as measured by the brotherhood of man and the achievement of justice on this earth. The blood of the martyrs seems hardly necessary to establish decimal coinage"
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:Like famous crazy man Thomas Jefferson. This but unironically. It's hilarious how many bad ideas in American politics, right, left, and center, can be traced to a Jefferson quote. Silver2195 fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Apr 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:This but unironically. Bad philosophy isn't really the same as insanity, especially when it mirrors a large group of peers. And specifically wrestling power away from the remote British Empire into his own hands worked out well and makes a lot of rational sense. It was risky but power grabs always are and that doesn't make them irrational. Even if we insist on retroactively diagnosing a dead dude with some mental illness, it would be fringe view as he is not typically condemned by society.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
Jefferson was 70% correct and 30% wrong
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
KomeradeCanadian posted:Doesn't every single bloody revolution turn things more conservative, and result in a loss of liberty? I'll never endorse violence, but I think mass political violence is inevitable in this country. More and more people are ending up in extreme poverty and homeless due to automation, deregulation, and outsourcing. Eventually something is going to give because our current political and economic model is simply not sustainable. When the violence does break out, I won't be participating in it. I had neck surgery two years ago, my insurance lapsed, and I am not going to mess up my neck or spine for any reason. I'll be here shitposting with ya'll instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
I think that if we did slide into violence as a society... there won't be choice as to participation (I'm including being on the receiving end as participation). It is not something that one can nessisarily opt out of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2019 03:49
|
|
|
lllllllllllllllllll posted:Not directly tied to that topic, but I sometimes wonder if it wasn't possible to change the view on violence by the state. For example, if the government cuts benefits to disabled people so much they can barely afford medicine or food, is that not a violent act? And if so, would't the person affected by this dilemma have a good cause to defend their dignity and health? However, if someone would theoretically act violent against the state, their actions will be quickly framed by lots of people in a negative light. Perhaps this is where to start instead. The most violent acts committed in our lifetimes, and probably many lifetimes before, have been executed by the strokes of pens, not the firing of guns or dropping of bombs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:The most violent acts committed in our lifetimes, and probably many lifetimes before, have been executed by the strokes of pens, not the firing of guns or dropping of bombs. and they jail people for breaking a window or stealing a loaf of bread. E: Incidentally, I got my red text for pointing out to some US douche goonlord that capitalist media and politicians have taught us to treat destroying property like violence against innocent humans. Tias fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Apr 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
I can't stop lolling about the irony of it being a fundamental argument of the second amendment types that we need to be able to violently defend ourselves from the state but also we absolutely cannot coordinate or discuss doing so like an actual militia might
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
That's fairly consistent if your entire method of viewing the world the government is wholly individualistic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I can't stop lolling about the irony of it being a fundamental argument of the second amendment types that we need to be able to violently defend ourselves from the state but also we absolutely cannot coordinate or discuss doing so like an actual militia might but I thought the 2nd amendment types -are- the ones who form the weird right-wing militias who goes to defend that rancher dude who refuse to pay his taxes
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2019 18:46
|
|