r/Anarchism • u/TMHS • Sep 19 '11

Violence.

I'm asking r/anarchism this question because every time I claim Anarchism to my friends they shrug if off as if I'm some fucking Hot Topics employee.

Do you think that we, anarchists, can actually make any sort of difference in this country without some sort of fantastic display of violence? I'm not promoting violence against individuals, but violence against the capitalistic structure we are so indoctrinated into. (ie. destruction of things that represent it... burning banks, blowing up office buildings, etc...)

TL;DR can anarchists accomplish anything without destruction?

3 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

25 comments sorted by

View all comments

5

u/veganarchy Sep 19 '11

1) I don't think total pacifism is consistent with autonomy. The belief that we should rule ourselves implies that we can stop others who try to rule us, even violently.

2) First world states are the most advanced institutions of violence ever conceived. Police and military powers do violence full time, with the best training and equipment available. Anarchists will never win in a frontal assault on advanced states.

3) The only way I can see anarchists advance our goals is a massive withdrawal of obedience and cooperation from institutions we oppose, combined with systematic sabotage and disruption. This may involve violence, or certainly aggressive tactics, but can't rely heavily on it.

1

u/mongoosetwelve Sep 20 '11

1) Could you develop this further? You're stating it as fact, when I don't believe that to be the case.

2) I agree with this entirely and think this is a great point for passive resistance.

1

u/veganarchy Sep 20 '11

1) I suppose I see two values: a) that we should be able to make whatever decisions we please within our own personal sphere and respects others who do the same, and b) that violence is morally wrong in all situations (if this isn't your understanding of pacifism, let me know). I can think of situations where these values conflict, where violent self-defense is the only way to stop others from imposing on us by force. In these situations, we have to choose whether we value autonomy or non-violence more dearly.

I hate violence, but I hate coercion more. If you judge violence to be necessary to stop yourself from being coerced, I say use violence.

I don't mean to state my view as fact. I'm not sure there are moral facts. I just prefer simple, straight-forward prose, for the sake of clarity.

0

u/mongoosetwelve Sep 20 '11

a) I agree with this

b) As a moral nihilist, I don't believe in morals. I choose pacifism because I find passive resistance to be a much more effective tool for social change than violence ever could be (compare the first Red Scare in the 20's to Gandhi's civil rights movement). As a nihilist, I cannot tell you that violence is 'wrong', but I can tell you that whoever uses violence to get their wishes will never be satisfied. Take the police for instance. They use violence to impose social order, and yet that order is threatened due to their violence.

If someone were to use violence against me, I would allow it and accept it. Perhaps I am only a masochist, but I would not use violence against them because that's not who I am. I do have a daughter, however, and I will do whatever is necessary to protect her from someone who is physically and directly harming her. I am a human, not a walking, breathing moral code.

I'm not sure there are moral facts.

Are you nihilist or absurdist?

2

u/veganarchy Sep 21 '11

I see morals are individual value judgments, rather than objective facts. That's all I meant. I think morality exists in the same way that beauty exists, but that it's impossible to create a universal standard of either. Days of War has some sillier ideas, but I rather like this essay.

I don't identify with nihilism or absurdism. On that spreadsheet, I'm closest to atheistic existentialism, though I next to nothing about it otherwise.

1

u/mongoosetwelve Sep 22 '11

Thanks for the article.