You must log in or register to comment.
Violence is never a good solution, and yes to all those other questions.
To prevent fascism we need to change ourselves, to stop viewing violence as an acceptable means to solve problems, and to reject that “might makes right”
It requires a social revolution that has to happen within our own minds before it happens in the street.
This is all fine and well, but ultimately in my opinion doomed to failure. The state and the ruling class do not just have a monopoly on violence because of the social attitudes protecting them, but also because of the conditions they have created for the working class and the rewards they give to class traitors.
You will never convince the ruling class to give up their monopoly on violence. And they will never willingly change the conditions that allow them to maintain that monopoly.
I completely understand your position and I agree that the state must be dismanted and that fascism must always be opposed. I also agree that the ruling class and the state will never willingly surrender their power.
However, I disagree that perpetrating violence is required to end capitalism and the state. I believe a non-violent revolution is possible. That non-violent revolution may provoke violence from the state/ruling class as a response, which of course can be defended against - self defense is valid, as is defending a nascent non-violent revolutionary movement against reactionary violence. However, the revolutionary movement itself using violent means to bring about revolution is completely self-defeating. Firstly, it reaffirms the violence of the state - might makes right - we use violence to remove you, thus it would be valid for violence to be used to remove us. Secondly, it is doomed to once again repeat the cycle: A violent state violently oppresses it’s people, a violent revolution forges a new violent state, which uses violent means to impose control, and ends up being violently replaced itself.
A successful revolution requires strong class consciousness, solidarity and unity among the working class. That takes a long time to build, and cannot just happen overnight. It also cannot be imposed, it has to happen entirely from free will. This is a matter of changing people’s values and feelings, not just dumping a pile of theory on everyone and pushing them through re-education. Without a working class galvanized against the corruption of the ruling class, they will always be able to turn the working class against itself and reassume control and re-establish the state.
As for fascism, it is ultimately an ideology of “might makes right, and we’re the mightiest” - by proactively using violence to oppose it, we are validating it - might does make right, but WE are mightier. It doesn’t do anything about the socioeconomic conditions which cause fascism, it gives fascists more opportunities to prove that their enemies are real and not imagined, it encourages a fascists to take increasingly violent acts and to act with less and less restraint.
I am not saying we should tolerate fascists. We should defend ourselves, our homes and our communities by refusing them any and all platforms to spread their own violent rhetoric, we should use any and all methods to remove them from power. But we have to accept that violence will not solve fascism. It will only deepen the problem. We need to solve the causes, such as dismantling patriarchy, capitalism, etc. in a non-violent way as much as possible. Violence should be only used in cases of self defense when there is no other option, and never proactively.
I appreciate your well reasoned response, but with that philosophy fascism is absolutely inevitable since it requires pacifism and passivity. If it is not forcibly removed from the marketplace of ideas you run smack dab into the paradox of tolerance and fascism will always take root and thrive where it isn’t aggressively eliminated.
Again, advocating for non-violence does not mean that the use of force is never justified, just that it is not itself a solution to anything. You cannot remove fascism from the marketplace of ideas with force because it IS an idea. You can (and should) eject a nazi from a bar, but doing so does not solve fascism. It can only be permenently defeated with non-violence. That’s why fascism didn’t end after World War 2.
Fascism isn’t carried in the blood of people. It is an idea that is derived from the concept that might makes right. Fighting that ideology WITH might can never defeat it. That way, you only reproduce it.
I don’t see a reality that is entirely free from violence of any kind as conceivable. I do however see a future wherein there is no monpoly of violence as possible, and that such a future would result in far less violence as a whole.
I also completely agree that we need to solve the root causes of fascism. Fascism is very much a consequence of capitalism and inequalities as well.
I totally agree with everything you said, and I also believe that there is no way to permenently abolish the state monopoly on violence, without first abolishing our belief that violence is a good solution to our problems.
Abolishing the state through violence without a social revolution means you will either end up with warlords until one of the warlords forms a new state or a transitory state willing to use violence to enforce it’s rule, which brings you right back to a monopoly on violence.
As long as people are willing to use violence to get a leg up on others, people will do so. Those with the will to do so, will accumulate wealth, power, and control, until they can themselves establish a monopoly on violence.
We need to realize this so we can progress as a society. It is our violent tendencies holding us back.
This is the most liberal idealism garbage I’ve read all day. Enjoy your social revolution of the mind from your concentration camp.
Lemmy is so full of tankies who, upon encountering radical left-wing ideas, become confused and call it liberalism, it seems.
This is how we permenently abolish the state. Without a social revolution, the ruling class will always reassert itself.
Keep learning and keep an open mind, comrade, and hopefully we will one day fight alongside eachother.
100% agreed.
Violence is never a good solution, and yes to all those other questions.
In my experience, people usually hold this position right up to the moment someone punches them.
Power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
The reason I believe violence isn’t a good solution to problems is because violence leads to further violence.
For example, if you are an oppressed minority, and you perpetrate a violent attack against your oppressor, that will likely provoke a violent response, which will radicalize that minority further, encouraging further cycles of violence.
In a self-defense scenario, defending yourself against attackers may well protect your life and body, but it will also likely galvanize the attackers - they will view themselves as the victims of your violence, and use it to justify further attacks.
Self-defense is completely valid and understandable, and I would never argue against it - it’s pretty much a biological impulse. But we do have to acknowledge that it isn’t going to solve the actual root of any problems.
We need to acknowledge that our urge to use violence to solve problems leads to harm even when we have the best and most noble of intentions, and try to change the world through positive means, by building alternative structures of power, using solidarity to protect ourselves against would-be attackers, and defending ourselves against violent attacks where necessary, but never acting as the perpetrator.
I hope this makes sense.
I think I kind of get what you mean, but how does one put this into practice in an extreme real-world example? Ending a genocide, for instance, or stopping a child abuser. It seems to me that nonviolence is a good strategy to prevent such situations, but that violence is necessary if those methods fail.
I understand that these are both bad things that we should try to prevent, but using violence to solve them just deepens the original issues behind them.
Child abuse is generally perpetrated by people who themselves were the victim of abuse. Not all who are abused become abusers, but almost all abusers were abused. By teaching kids that it’s okay to use violence to get our way, we are implicitly teaching them that it’s okay for them to be abusers if they can rationalize the abuse to themselves. By using violence even against child abusers we are legitimizing their actions - might makes right, we have power over you, we want you to stop abusing children, we will use violence to do so. In their case, might makes right, adults have power over kids, they want to abuse kids, and they will use violence to do so. The oppression of the state is not dissimilar to the oppression of an abusive parent.
I was myself abused badly by adults when I was a kid, so I have some strong feelings about it. Violence would not help the abused children, it would only be done to give the adults in the situation the satisfaction of revenge. To help the abused children, remove them from the abusive situation, provide therapy, tell them that what happened was not their fault and that they did nothing wrong.
Retributive justice is not justice at all. Harming child abusers will not prevent child abuse. What might prevent child abuse is therapy, education and awareness, teaching that child abuse usually happens in families and is done by people with power and authority over kids.
Abusers themselves would also require a lot of therapy. It should be treated as more of a public health issue than a criminal one, in my opinion, as abusers usually have a lot of mental health issues, from my personal experience.
As for genocide, I don’t think genocides can be perpetrated in the modern world without complicity on the international stage. Cutting off all trade, access to the Internet and other media, ending relations with genocidal states, and putting pressure on them through other means, would probably be sufficient to encourage the people of that state to bring about change internally, ideally through as non-violent of a revolution as can be managed.
Much of my ideals require that all states eventually be dissolved, because states and governments themselves are basically violence incarnate, but there are bold steps we can take towards that utopian vision which are principled and move us in the right direction.
But this change has to come from the inside out. It has to happen first in our hearts, then in our homes, then in our communities, before spreading out to entire countries, and then the world.
Choose yourself to be non-violent. Just as violence encourages more violence, refusal to engage in violence and speaking against violence inspires others to be non-violent in the future.
I hard disagree. A commitment to nonviolence permits organised fascists to take control. Why is violence not a solution? If somebody is assaulting you then violence is an acceptable response. If somebody is abusing a child this is a form of violence and thus can be met with a violent response. Violence can discourage violence hence the existence of the police and so-called justice systems. I understand how these systems can create violence but my point is that violence doesn’t -only beget violence. It’s a brutal tool to enforce conformity but a tool nonetheless, and since I see imprisonment as more inhumane then the only other alternative in what you termed utopia would be, at least in my reasoning, exile to paedo island after receiving a full face tattoo. That’s not even getting into the issues the utopia would have with organised, militaristic fascist groups popping up left and right. I’m sure this must have been the norm in pre-civilisation and I’m not naive enough to believe that the existence of an anarchistic world would remain stable as everything comes to pass, but how would those within this society ensure its survival for the longest time possible? Within your vision of stateless utopia, where would the communists and the capitalists go, and how would they operate with the societies outside of their enclaves? How would those outside the enclaves defend themselves from the influence of these societies to avoid the reinstatement of the current status quo, or one far worse for the average person? There are always unintened consequences to every action. I don’t have the answers to these questions and it seems nobody else does either, but we aren’t ever going to get everyone on the planet to agree to orient themselves toward the same goals because the mere act of geographical separation creates speciation within ideologies. Everything is subject to the law of evolution via natural selection, including ideas and ideologies. Without brainwashing and indoctrinating children into anarchist ideology I don’t see how it can be achieved, and that is completely antithetical to my beliefs and is the major reason I identify as an anarchist.
Police and state use of violence is not effective for deterring and preventing crime. You should really know that if you’re an anarchist! I’m an anarchist too.
and again, I differentiate between protecting yourself using force, and proactively using force to achieve long-term goals. Violence is seductive, it seems like it is a quick and effective way to get what we want, but it’s a double edged sword. It will always harm our cause in the long term more than a non-violent approach. This is for a number of reasons, but if our long-term goal is for a non-violent world, using violence to get there is, on the face of it, self-defeating.
I have explained in another comment how non-violence and resistance to fascism are completely compatible in other comments so I won’t repeat myself.
By the by, you should probably read a little more about paleolithic and neolithic human socieities. They were significantly more co-operative, peaceful, and closer to anarchic communes than you’d probably expect.
I haven’t really written much here about any kind of utopia, I’m not really here suggesting I have big amazing solutions for the world, as an anarchist I think we all need to learn from eachother and be willing to accept we don’t have all of the answers. But I have definitely learned from my life that violence only brings more violence, and I want to live in a world with less violence, so I encourage people to find non-violent solutions to their problems, and I think you should, too.
you have never been in a fight have you?
Sometimes violence does work though.
Stonewall, for example.
Maybe the answer in this current system, is to make oppression and bigotry expensive. More expensive than equality and treating people well.
Violence should be only in the hands of the government.
Having said that, if the violence is being misused by that very government, it forms an exception…
I agree that the status of violence being monopolized is a net good for society, it fact I tend to agree that it may actually be the most important distinction between “civilization” and not.
That said, state violence needs to be intensely reviewed and unjust or overuse of it should be rectified. The U.S. idea of qualified immunity tends to be eliminated, and in the few cases where it is justified can be replaced with a much more narrow policy/practice. And that’s just to start.
Also, restrained violence in defense of self or others, including resisting unjust state violence, is universally acceptable. It’s necessity shows problems with how the monopolizer of violence is imperfectly dispensing violence, which must be expected from an imperfect actor.
I fundamentally disagree. No one should be trusted to wield violence on behalf of the working class. The working class should use collective violence to prevent a monopoly of violence from ever forming in the first place.
The working class should use collective violence to prevent a monopoly of violence
Read this again
There is no contradiction there. I’m an anarchist and fundamentally anti-capitalist.
The working class or the proletariat is by far the largest class in society. It encompasses all those who labor to survive, and all those who cannot profit by exploitation of labor.
All other classes should be dissolved and all people should hold the same relative power. Whenever anyone comes along and proposes giving all the guns to another specific group of people who will use violence on behalf of the working class, the working class should respond with collective violence to prevent a monopoly of violence from forming.
So the working class are the only ones who have a legitimate claim to violence? Why? Are you making the claim that it is acceptable for Group A to use violence to terrorise Group B into ideological submission? If not, what claim are you making? If so, why is that any different to the legitimate use of violence by the state? Is it simply a numbers game? If so, in a majority fascist country would the fascists not have the same claim to the monopoly on violence?
While I’m asking, do you believe that money is the only form of profit, or could welfare and social capital also be considered profit? If so everyone in the west is profiting off the exploitation of developing nations, including our worst off as they have access to support and infrastructure, however ineffective, than the exploited foreign workers upon whom the existence of our society is predicated. Are you donating all of your money to charitable causes to the point where you live as ascetic a life as them?
I am saying there should not be any other socioeconomic class other than the working class. The ruling class should be dissolved, the landowner class should be dissolved, the capitalist class should be dissolved, so and so forth until there is only the working class and all people are members of the working class.
If all members of society have the same relative power and access then there can be no monopoly of violence.
As to your second paragraph I cant tell what youre trying to get at? Are you saying that in order to criticize something I must entirely seperate myself from it? I am not a representative of the state which claims authority over me. I do not support or endorse the actions of the state i am subjected to. I would gladly accept the systemic changes necessary to give all workers the same power.
Violence is sometimes the answer. We should be slow to it and exhaust all other options first, but refusing it in principle as a red line means sociopaths who are incapable of empathy have absolutely zero reason to not oppress you. We get into serious systemic problems when we assume everyone has a conscience.
I teach my kids that violence is the last option and that they better show they have been fucking creative with finding alternative options first.
Also, violence should be creative too. Simple violence does not fight power.
I hate these comics that encourage this “gotcha” kind of discourse. This is why it’s impossible to talk about politics outside of an echo chamber nowadays.
That’s kind of the definition of a state, where there’s a monopoly on violence. A failed state would have multiple warlords and militias.
Violence may not be pretty but you cant destroy fascism with kind words and open dialogue. All we can hope for is that one day we may achieve a society where it is no longer needed.
On top of what you said already. I’m really getting annoyed with the amount of “leftist” that don’t know when to shut the fuck up and just do some propaganda. I think it comes from the same large portion of the American left that are really just liberals with some spice. The people you’re describing basically.
I don’t know where it comes from. I’d guess a mix of the “reddit atheist” and the “Ben Shapiro gets DESTROYED with facts and logic” enjoyers.
I’m being vague. What I mean is when a leftist describes a conflict and feels as though they have to be fair and explain everything. It’s the “Hamas is also bad” or the “Maduro is a really unpopular and corrupt leader” that they feel required to start with before explaining why it’s still bad that Israel did a genocide or America kidnapped a countries leader. All normies hear is the “center” that you are giving them for free. Something that the right is already using. They grew up and were educated in a right wing system. They are going to side with the reactionary views every single time when you give ground to it.
Like, please, please read the room of the political landscape today. If you’re talking to normies you can literally just state concise and clearly the faults of the fascist Imperialist. Make it simple. Don’t use words like “fascist Imperialist” like I just did.
You can literally move people left by asking them “do you think this will reduce your rent or grocery prices”. Seriously, stop trying to turn everyone into a revolutionary by going step by step in the way you did. Most people don’t think that way. Just do some fucking propaganda please.
Edit: sorry, for the sleep deprived rant. I agreed with your comment and it triggered a frustration.
I’ve heard this sort of tactic described as “street epistemology”
Exactly. Literally had to look that up though. Seems to fit what I’m trying to explain.
Violence seems to get the working class a lot of advantages
These “gotcha” memes are gringy bad.
No, there is no gotcha
Yes, violence never should be the solution , yet unfortunately is sometimes (too many times) still a necessity
Yeah, right now may be the moment when violence in the US might be a necessity, but calling for non violence should never be shamed. It’s the final place where we all want to end up, or do you guys just love violence?
Fuck this meme, we have enough shit to deal with
“… or do you guys just love violence?”
You’re so close!
… So you love violence, then? Or what DO you mean?
Nah, its pointing out that the majority of “nonviolence” people just want you to sit down and
take it¹ die.There are legitimate cases against violence, but those are extremely radical and call for active destruction of the infrastructures, social and practical, of violence, for challenging people in sometimes illegal (but still not violent) ways.
I see the point of that radical case, even if I’m not sure I agree with it.
Its pointing out that letting one side do violence while you let them do violence against you is an endorsement of their violence. It’s pointing out that liberalism is an ideology of violence, cannot exist without violence.
Personally, dismantling police armies and private security would be perfectly fine with me. I’m down for that, and would be okay with a taboo on weapons and violence in the event of that. I’d actually really like that.
¹whoops, wrong century
True but also the comic artist doesnt know how to structure a joke
That artist also got baby pics off Facebook and traced them for diaper fetish porn
deleted by creator
Violence and weapons are not the same.
The police should at least be as armed as the citizens and the military should at least be as armed as any international enemies or threats.
Relevant as fuck, Marvels Defenders of the Status Quo
