The only war is class war
If the rule of law fails to protect the people and stops enforcing the law equally for all, then yeah, I think violence is all we have left.
Probably the comment I agree with the most here
In general, no.
Depending on the situation, as a last resort, yes.
Nice try FBI
This is a really good article going over class basis of pacifism, and touching on its historical failure to undo injustice:
What about Pacifism / pacifist socialism? Is violence necessary to acheive socialism? What about Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi? audiobook
Some quotes:
Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?
It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.
But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.
- Engels - Principles of Communism
On the question of whether the armed struggle is the only path to liberation, I would answer that at least in the case of our country, we have no other path. And we think that in the immense majority of latin american countries, there is no other path than the armed struggle. It seems to be the same case for countries in Asia and Africa. In general imperialism counts on, in every way, joining forces with the oligarchy, of every country, to impede the democratic revolution in every country. And its hanging people with a rope that can only be cut by armed struggle.
Revolutionaries didn't choose armed struggle as the best path. Its the path the oppressors imposed on the people. So people only have two choices: To suffer, or to fight.
Lemmy does. I don't, but Lemmy will shank you in a dark alley for drug money, like an American Badger.
the law requires I say no
i don’t condone violence, officer.
Nice try, fed
Self defense can apply to systems. Insurance for example. From what I understand United Health Care did change some policies because of Luigi.
what are you, a cop?
I tell my kids, never start it, but if someone hits you, hit them back hard enough that they won't want to do it again. I feel like this works all the way up to state level doctrine.
Violence is a tool, like fire. Be careful and thoughtful about when and how to use it, otherwise you can burn yourself and your city.
I have long believed violence is the language of those who's voices have been stolen. Take that however you will.
I condemn the opressor and agressor violence only
When used as a defense against violence or other severely harmful actions, yes.
The threat needs to either be imminent or an ongoing perpetuation of violence or other severely harmful action. An example of an ongoing severely harmful action would include being restrained physically or geographically and being starved.
I abhor violence, both witnessing and exercising it, but I accept and support it if it is used as a form of defense against abuse, whether systematic or personal.
In short: I personally would not set fire to an ICE vehicle, but I would applaud anyone who did.
Definitely.
It's a violent world. If you think you can magically opt out of that, somehow, you might have lived a massively privileged life (to this point).
That being said, look at all the people in the thread who are afraid to admit possible abstract, hypothetical support for something. On a hard-left instance, of an alt platform, that I'm currently using over Tor. That should be an indicator of how much actual will there is to brave a shooting war. (You didn't ask if we wanna revolution specifically, but this is .ml so I have to address it)
The practical takeaway of the literal question is much more nuanced and subtle.
I don't have an answer to the question but here's an unrelated set of emojis 🍊🔫
Depends. The average person? No.
The cop who just found me dumpster diving trying to find something to eat for the first time in days who screamed at me so hard I started to have a panic attack? Yeah.
There's no one size fits all answer. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Depends on the application. It's a tool that has necessary use cases, but just like you don't need a sledgehammer for a nail, you can certainly make things worse by using it, or slip into excess. I support the right of the oppressed to use violence to liberate themselves, and the right of those to use violence to free the oppressed.
Never start a fight, but always finish it.
I try to avoid it myself, but that's not always possible. How could I hold others to a higher standard than I hold myself?
What I cannot condone is lethal force by the state. I discourage it from individuals as well.
In the extreme case when nothing else is left.
When nothing else is left, use violence against the right
Violence is always a bad option. Sometimes however, it's the least bad of the bad options. And knowing when that point has been reached is incredibly hard, and often misjudged.
Sort of. Be a decent person and treat others with decency. If something indecent is about to happen or happening to you or others, do your best to stop it or seek justice, by appropriate means for the situation. Don’t kill someone who threw water at you or kicked your truck.
“I have watched them all day and they are the same men that we are. I believe that I could walk up to the mill and knock on the door and I would be welcome except that they have orders to challenge all travelers and ask to see their papers. It is only orders that come between us. Those men are not fascists. I call them so, but they are not. They are poor men as we are. They should never be fighting against us and I do not like to think of the killing.”
“I hope I am not for the killing, Anselmo was thinking. I think that after the war there will have to be some great penance done for the killing. If we no longer have religion after the war then I think there must be some form of civic penance organized that all may be cleansed from the killing or else we will never have a true and human basis for living. The killing is necessary, I know, but still the doing of it is very bad for a man and I think that, after all this is over and we have won the war, there must be a penance of some kind for the cleansing of us all.”
The question reminded me of "For whom the bell tolls". It's rather strange that during all these months whenever I get bored and grab a book it's about one of the various wars of last century. I can't help but read all of them with an eerie feeling of anticipation. Remarque's "The Night of Lisbon" hit especially hard, but this one is a tower of a book as well and I had totally forgotten how deep it is. If Hemingway was alive today, would he get involved in some conflict elsewhere? Should more of us be on the way to Gaza, or at least involved in a general strike to force them to stop this nonsensical warmongering? Even not being in the US settling into business as usual makes me feel like a fascist, every day the feeling gets a little stronger. Non-violent protest would be my weapon of choice and always has been, but if I'm ever forced into hiding for who I am? Might just get really creative out of pure spite.
I beat my dick into submission daily.
Some define violence as a strongly worded email. Handling personal disputes with physical or verbal agression is a no no. Peaceful protest are a yes. Be like Ghandi, MLK, Rosa Parks and others. Don't be the same as the so called MAGA and proud boys in the US, or the UKIP / Farage twats in the UK. Just my personal view.
No.
Violence is stupid. In some situations, it's just an output for one's rage. In other situations, it's a battle of who is best equipped (hardware + intelligence). Neither of these address the core of the disagreement. Violence only beats the loser into submission. It does not change their stance on the matter.
Negotiation, on the other hand, ideally, at least gives all parties some gains and losses. It may not be the end of the matter but it's generally a positive step and should promote some degree of respect.
Maybe we never had it, but I think we've largely lost the ability to be respectful and empathetic to others. Even though we find to be of the greatest evil, I think, should be given some initial respect to try to understand the emotional reality of their intent.
I won't write it out, but imagine the worse crime an adult male could do to someone. Something so revolting that the only "logical" recourse is violence. This is an emotional response that does not address the problems that brought this person to such an evil act. By ignoring the problem and beating the person down, we are not able to understand how they got to this place or how we can recognize this path in others. This is a brief example for the sake of time. If you look at something like genocide, I think the process does scale up but too complex to write out for now.
I condone empathy for all because we all as a species benefit from it.
Edit: on second thought - violence used to preserve life may generally be acceptable.
I primarily agree - it's not right for an adult male to rope someone into an experience they don't consent to, whether they believe the time is ripe to reap the results of a neglectful society or not. Learning of the lived experiences of said individual instead of blindly deciding to wrap a rap sheet round their existence and call it a day will help understand why men rape children.
P.s. Don't forget that people of almost any age and sex can rape too, regardless of legal definition. The only discerning factor here is that the male (from as young as 8) can inseminate and possibly impregnate the victim if said victim is a human female.
I'm opposed to violence, however I define it differently to how the state does. One example of violence that wouldn't be considered by the state to be violence is calling the cops.
Violence is a hierarchy and as soon as you understand that, the more you understand it as a meaningless term.
I think that violence can be adequately defined as "the instigation of aggression/harm against peaceful beings." Hierarchy is not strictly required for this.
That assumes that it is a neutral act and an act based souly on who hit first. It leads to some serious moral consequences to work based on the schoolyard politics of, "But miiiissss, he hit me first"
Ya
