Is generalized violence authoritarian?

What is "generalised" violence?

I don't really think violence can or should be taken in the abstract; it can be either oppressive or liberating depending on context, the people involved, power relations, desired and actual outcome, circumstance in which it happens and so on.

(The abuser who beats their partner as compared to the victim who fights back being an obvious example; both violent but the context does change things enormously.)

I find the whole fixation with the violence/non-violence debate in some activist circles quite offputting to be honest, whether from liberal pacifists or insurrectionist types. In the UK anyway, right now I'm not sure it's that big a deal, at least not in relation to the amount of words that get spilled on it (the whole kerfuffle the over Hedges/black bloc thing being an example). No harm in discussing it of course, but still...

Because the very term taken to the abstract would mean nothing. Look at the problem of property destruction and attacks against individuals. With the sweeping abstract media usage of the term, property destruction is violence as much as attacks against individuals, and wherever one of these occurs, they are ready to announce the "fierce violence". Now, if you turn around their perspective, that is, to "violence is good", it would be just as meaningless, as the condemning choir.

Leaky abstractions are opening gates to ideological justification which should be avoided unless you want to launch again witch hunts.

IMHO, violence has its specific role in the revolutionary process but not violence as such, but specific operation under specific circumstances. Violence in general, the "by any means" thinking, would make a distinction between the means and the ends.

I agree however that capitalism, as any other class-society is inherently violent. Those who try to remove violence as a tool from our armoury, they use the term in its abstract definition that has no specific meaning at all, and is used for having a blank card against any radical action. If windows are smashed during a revolt, then it is violence to smash a window, etc. As I was bitching about it somewhere else, non-violence is a tyranny, and an obsession with the mean without considering the ends. Nevertheless, the opposite thinking is as counter-productive as the ideology of doing nothing.

IMO the value or otherwise of using violence isn't really down to how "bad" the target is on some sort of moralistic grounds, but whether it moves us any closer to our goals (and fwiw in most cases the things you mention won't - you can't blow up a social relationship.)

Assassinating David Cameron tomorrow would achieve precisely fuck all, since he'd just get replaced by someone just as bad if not worse, plus a whole load of repressive legislation being brought in as a consequence. Whether or not he's a "bad man" isn't really the point.

(I'm also curious as to why you would group together riots, bombings and assassinations - all of which are clearly violent - with strikes and intimidation, which can be violent but don't have to be.)

Largely what soc said above. Treating things like violence in the abstract reduces it to the act itself without regard to the circumstances in which it occurs, who is affected, what alternatives there are, what the consequences will be and so on. It strikes me as a symptom of liberalism more than anything, as though all that matters is the idea of violence rather than the real-world environment in which it occurs.

Could compare it to theft, for that matter. Nicking a sandwich from Tesco is different to stealing a mobility scooter from someone who's disabled, which is different to committing armed robbery. Sure, they all involve taking something you don't own but the context changes things significantly, and without that context the discussion becomes a bit meaningless.

I guess it just seems to me that with politics here being the way it is at present, the question of violence and non-violence isn't - or at least, shouldn't be - a major point of division. The discussions generally seem to revolve around violence and vandalism at protests, combined with the leftist fixation with "supporting" (in the form of writing endless statements) or "not supporting" militant groups in parts of the world they know little about and can have little to no impact on.

I do think there's a place for discussing these things, certainly. Personally one of the main things that led me to become disillusioned with a lot of the summit-hopping stuff was the way the demonstrations seemed to become entirely about how hard people kicked off, how many windows got smashed, how many cops got hit, as though greater disruption meant we were "winning" in some sense. That mentality doesn't seem to have come into the anti-cuts movement as far as I've noticed, at least not to the same extent, which I think is a good thing.

Similarly, in cases where we have to deal with police violence there's certainly a need to discuss how we approach it, since people have different physical and emotional needs and limitations that shouldn't just be ignored.

My problem, the Hedges fiasco being an example, is when people start to identify with these things on such a personal level - "violent" versus "non-violent", "pacifist" versus "black bloc" - to the point it becomes a real point of division and distraction for little to no benefit. If nothing else, the discussion often puts the emphasis entirely on how people behave on demonstrations and at things like occupy. While these things are important they're only one element of what we do - and, I would argue, not the most important one.

this i think

http://www.truth-out.org/black-bloc-cancer-occupy/1328541484

http://libcom.org/library/be-fair-he-journalist-short-response-chris-hedges-black-bloc

Yup. Sorry, I should have explained in the first place.

Yep. Their naivety comes from exactly from the indiscriminate attitude toward violence, and the lack of historical understanding what power means. An other reason why we must be more careful when it comes to define terms like violence.

Violence does entail inherently authoritarian attributes as fundamentally, it involves forcibly imposing will on another by the means of a physical act. However, it can be used, particularly on mass scale (or this generalised sense you refer to) as a truly anti-authoritarian method of achieving change. If violence is being implemented with the intention of countering authoritarianism of another sense, i.e a pogrom, fascist demonstration, military offence then it is arguable that the intrinsic 'authoritarianism' within violence is justified or nullified.

...And your point is...?

might make you a bit of a dick yeah. I am not sure whether it is authoritarian (I consider authoritarianism to be connected to statehood), but it is certainly problematic.

I can't think of an example of where this sort of violence against 'liberals' (can we perhaps define this term better in this thread, I'm not sure me and Krieg would use it in the same ) would be necessary? (given that, according to your comments, they are not in the business of violence, unlike the state).

Liberals are shit, but I really don't see it as necessary to inflict violence upon them, unless it were out of self-defense. I think CamelBlip expanded upon your question rather well, I'm more or less inclined to agree.

You aren't going to smash the state by smashing liberals. Most liberals passively 'consent' to the existence of both capitalism and the state, they aren't necessarily protecting it.

If a liberal tries to detain you at a protest or whatever, fight them off. You are aware that many liberals are still working class, right?

Quasi-fascists are somewhat different than your average liberal, and while I agree that many liberal activists attempt to co-opt spontaneous and horizontally-organized radical movements to serve their own agenda, kicking their ass isn't going to resolve this.

As long as liberal ideology exists, there will always be liberal ideologues, comrade. I'm out, have a good one.

Edit - Taking out fascists which have become influential is an entirely different scenario.

Debatable...

Yes,generalized violence authoritarian is correct and i totally agree with it.