Anarcho-syndicalism (Violent/Pacifistic)

39 posts / 0 new
Last post
CoeXisT's picture
CoeXisT
Offline
Joined: 19-09-06
Sep 29 2006 22:50
Joseph K. wrote:
He basically says that only the strong are moral agents, i.e. only those with the power to do good or bad can make moral choices. pacifism strikes me as a futile attempt to abolish such power, and so escape the complexities of moral agency rather than confronting them.

I understand what you're trying to say, but it doesn't really work. If only those with power can do good or bad, because power gives them this 'ability' to do good or bad, then what is it that revolutionaries are doing? Pacifism, or bettery yet non-violent revolution, is just an alternative attempt at abolishing power.

Like I said earlier, "pacifism" might not have been the best word to explain my idea. Non-violence seems to be a better explanation. Pacifism evokes the idea that people will do nothing and hope for things to change. That I do not condone.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Sep 29 2006 23:57

but power can't be abolished, life is power. power congealed in the state and capital (or other ways) confronts us a domination, but as long as we are alive we have some power, and thus inescapable moral agency, and a capacity for violence (and of course love ...). My problem with what you are advocating is it seems to be trying to abolish that irreducible part of the fabric of our being.

I understand what you're getting at with 'non-violence' as opposed to 'pacifism' - you are advocating action not passivism (pardon the pun wink ). but i don't think an absolutist approach to violence is tenable - what do you think the jews of the warsaw ghetto should have done, or the anarcho-syndicalists in spain in '36 faced with a fascist coup, or someone getting raped - is a rape victim just as bad as the rapist if they offer physical resistance? or do we recognise a line, however blurry and difficult to exactly pinpoint, between defence and aggression, power and domination?

thats what i'm getting at with the inescapable 'impossible decision' or moral agency, particularly with regard to violence: there is no strict demarcation between defence and aggression, but we are forced to distinguish them anyway. i think an absolutist aproach to violence that disregards all context only works if you believe in an afterlife (gandhi, MLK), i.e. if you're a transcendentalist. if you're a materialist, if you think we are in this world and of this world and we have to live in this world, you have to confront this 'impossible decision', imho.

CoeXisT's picture
CoeXisT
Offline
Joined: 19-09-06
Sep 29 2006 23:57

By no means am I trying to abolish self-defence in my theory, and I never mentioned such (At least, not to my recollection). My proposition is a non-violent revolution. A non-violent revolution doesn't mean that one cannot defend themselves in a society, just merely that I believe a non-violent revolution has a higher chance of success than a 'violent' revolution.

It just seems to me that all humans, including those currently in power, will be more likely to come to a consensus and be willing to participate in an egalitarian post-revolutionary society if they didn't violently force/weren't violently forced during the revolution.

revol68's picture
revol68
Offline
Joined: 23-02-04
Sep 29 2006 23:58

So you can use violence in self defence? Yes or No?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Sep 30 2006 00:00

well if you believe in self defence we probably agree tongue like i say i'm not exactly pro-violence, i just see any non-violent revolutionary situation - mass strikes, workplace occupations etc - as probably requiring violence to defend it.

CoeXisT's picture
CoeXisT
Offline
Joined: 19-09-06
Sep 30 2006 01:43

Self defense is justifiable. Violent revolution is justifiable as self defense. Non-violent revolution is also justifiable. What is justifiable isn't always the correct course of action, and in this specific situation I believe that a non-violent revolution is the better alternative.

revol68's picture
revol68
Offline
Joined: 23-02-04
Sep 30 2006 02:17

fair enuff.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Sep 30 2006 08:31

yeah fair enough, like is say non-violent revolution would be best, i just think it's virtually impossible.