Right to violence

Do you think violence is justified in self-defense?

Actually i think most anarchists (apart, naturally, from anarcho-pacifists) don't fundamentally differ from Marxists on that one.

What we do differ from them on is, of course, what we define as "the revolution" and thus who it's legitimate to use violence against - which, for the Marxists, includes any kind of "counter-revolutionaries" (including of course anarchists, as shown by Spain and Kronstadt), whereas for us (i would like to think) it's only those directly responsible for the world being as shit as it is, and those stupid enough to put their lives on the line to defend them...

Certainly it's possible to condemn lots of the really shit violence that (some) Marxists try to claim is "revolutionary" (eg Iraqi/Palestinian Islamist suicide bombers) without having to be a pacifist...

Depends on the individual situation really, take pinochet for example, if he was eventually extradited to chile and hung you wouldn't exactly oppose that would you?

I don't think glorifying violence is a good thing, and far too many anarchists and socialists have been guilty of that, but violence is sometimes neccessary.

Hi

It's OK to wound bailiffs who try to intimidate your community, right? If it's OK to do it, then you may as well enjoy it.

Love

Chris

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallows_humour

The issue lem, is whether or not you accept that we have a right to defend our class and ourselves? This may be even in terms of a non-revolutionary situtation. For example, would you stand by and let facists come down your street attacking, blacks, jews, gays, muslims, catholics or trade unionists? I doubt it. Nor would I.

We have to be prepared to defend our communities and sadly, as the state has all the firepower, we would be deluding ourselves if we didn't accept the necessity of politcal vilolence in self defence and in the defence of the revolution. This is precisely why the state has opportunistically used dreadful killings such as Dumblain to disarm our class and its access to the ability to arm ourselves. Note your average rich land-owner counrty type is armed to the teeth.

In the Sates, of course, this is a major issue given the 2nd amendment, but many on the left here in the UK seem to see the right to bear arms as a purely Charlton Heston right-wing lunatic thing. Now clearly there are those types, probably the majority of gun owners over there, who may think like that, but there remains a serious issue of when we and our communities are attacked - how will we defend our right to self-determination?

Hi Cage11

That’s a fascinating point. I’m quite tempted by the idea that gun control is anti-working class, sort of like the Black Panthers’ position.

Loosening up gun control laws in the EU would certainly separate the men from the boys at those G8 protests, not to mention throwing out time in chav-town.

From where I’m standing, as tempted by the idea of my own AK as I am, I think more gun control in the States would be progressive for the international working class.

As for defending ourselves from armed reactionary and anti-social elements, I think I could live with a democratic professional military and an elected armed police.

Peace and Love

Chris

Yeah, I think they deserve it in all seriousness.

The point that Marxism derails for me is the right to kill as a part of the revolution.

I have a little problem with this assumption, marxism does not assert the right to kill as part of the revolution, marxism attempts to be a scientific examination of the nature of capitalist society, and an historical analysis of the development of class society, implicit in this is the conclusion that capitalism , like all other class society will eventually be replaced by new societys, marx however argued that capitalism creates a new situation. instead of previous class societies that could not meet the needs of all humanity and thus concentrated power and wealth into the hands of the few, capitalism created enough wealth to provide for all of humanity this created the conditions for the possibility of a truly classless society, communism, and also creates a political force that can achieve this new society the industrial working class. revolution is only violent in the resistance of the ruling classes to their overthrowing.

Revolution is a violent matter, we are seeking to wrest ALL of our masters power and priviligdes. They will use every weapon in their arsenals in order to prevent us from doing so.

In our red party discussions we have chatted about this and how those who take part in the insurrection would be twisted and soiled in the employment of this violence, in my opinion those of us who have carried arms in those circumstances would have to be banned from exercising any responsible roles in the post revolutionary society as it is being created ( this presumably means that if you carried a gun against the capitalists then you spend tthe rest of youre days propping up the bar). It has been suggested that as every adult is twisted by capitalism then 'power' should be handed straight in the hands of the next generation, ie let the kids run it all.

I think that ken macleod has all the old revolutionaries packed off to the outer solar system to 'defend ' earth and get them out of the way in his book the cassini division

Hi Darren

I like the cut of your jib Darren.

Nowadays I'm inclined to optimistically believe that our revolution is likely to end up a fairly bloodless affair. However in the event of having my otherwise beautiful psyche sullied by necessary brutal activities against the class enemy, I accept your kind offer of early retirement.

I promise not to enjoy offing the bourge too much, wouldn't want to get a taste for it, they're a finite resource after all.

Lots of love

Chris

What about people who directed violence? Trotsky never pulled a trigger in his life, but he still became a dictator. And if directing violence, why not directing train time tables? Both are about co-ordinating people's lives.

I reckon that if you get rid of everyone who took an active part int the revo, the future society would be run by wankers...

no thanks - while i like the idea of eternally propping up some communist bar, i'd rather have a full say in how my community is run, including the right to have some responsibility now and again

and btw you obviously misunderstood the cassini division - thats not what happened at all

The discussion that we were having was how to reconcile our recognition that there was a need to physically confront the state, arms in hand in order to acheive its overthrow, and our inately pacifist emotions.

The heart of state power is violence. in order to defeat the power of the state the revolutionaries must remove the states ability to direct its arsenal of violence. ie its armies police etc. At the centre of all successful uprisings are mass desertions of military units and their coming over to the side of the people this combined with the revolutionary take over of the running of the municipalities by workers councils and the means of production by factory commitees would see the bourgeoius disenfranchised in the 3 props of their rule military industrial and political/ideological.

Virtually all this would be, by our definition, non violent, although to the factory owner of course the expropriation of his property would appear the pinnacle of violence, .

But the bourgeious will not allow everything they have taken away without trying everything in their power to regain it.

All the dross of their brutal society will be dredged up; the pigs, 'reliable' military units (sas, paras) the fascist thugs, scabs, christian, and other ,fundamentalists will be armed and sent to crush us

It is in this conflict that we, who have been the victims of their violence for millenia, who have fed them , clothed them, provided the rich with every luxury whilst our heads have been ground into the filth, would be forced to take the weapons that historically have been used against us and instead use them to beat back those who would return us to our knees.

Violence is the weapon of oppressors. In using violence we lessen ourselves, dirty ourselves, even if it is for a good purpose, even if it necessary.

We may find that if we are not careful and despite our better intentions we may find ourselves seeing force as an acceptable tool in our post revolutionary society,that is why I feel it MAY be necessary for comrades who take up arms in the insuurrectioin to VOLUNTARILY exclude themselves from decision making positions, This of course wouldn't exclude any one from playing their part in building our new world.

Yea, I know thats not the plot of the cassini division, but the inference in the book is that they are there in order to get them out of the way.

These are just suggestions for discussion..

I posted originally as a response to the mistaken idea that there is a causal link between marxism and violence, my point is that we are forced to resort to violence because the ruling class will not give up its power any other way, but that that violence is alien to the project of creating a free communist society

It is, but back to Brecht's poem about the inhumanity of creating humanity for future generations. What a bloody dichotomy. (And back to the devious and diabolical dialectic)

A difficult one.

Well, we have a score to settle in my working class view for generations. Iraq and the poor Brazilian - new kids on the block Sorry.

Come quietly now capitalists....find your humanity peacefully.

I think it is an illusion to believe an armed revolution in the UK will ever happen. The middle classes, the army and the ‘gentry’ will not give up their comfortable lives. Also people who believe in armed revolution that I’ve spoken to forget about another group of people who are already armed, are not scared to use violence, and have an infrastructure already in place to take over, the inner city drug gangs. Some of the drug gang members seen to have no moral sense at all and would see no problem at all in killing anyone who gets in the way of them getting in power. Whereas most revolutionaries have never used a weapon in anger and when they see their friends blown up and see the real cost of an armed revolution, would realise what war really means.

I’m personally into an evolution. We need to educate people on why capitalism is wrong and what they can do to change things. Including showing by example, setting up housing coops, workers coops and food coops. Personally I want to live my life, not die fighting a war with very little chance that we can win.

Also as I’m new to this list I don’t know people’s view is on the left split. I wonder because there are so many different left groups how is a revolution going to happen? Even if they do come together to create a revolution, what makes people think they will stay united when or if it is won? I think It is more than likely that they will fight each other to see who is going to be in charge.

When I say they, it’s because I’m not sure where my political leanings are. I see good bits in all the political groups of the left, but none of them fit my politics completely, so much so that I see myself as my own political left of centre party.

I agree totally with that. I think if the revolutionnaries movements in europe are more and more tiny it's because people do not find benefical to risk their lives in a revolution. Nobody wants to be sniped on a barricade by a military when it's more realist and less risky to believe in reformism.

I don't defend reformism but i hate slogans like "not war but class war" ; "smash the state" and all the folklore of violence in anarchist movements.

I see the beniefice, for me first and the people, that an anarchist revolution can bring ; but for the large majority in Europe all that see in the notion of revolution is : violence, death, civil war and other negatives pictures.

L'agité

Absloutely -- toy town revolutionaries, even the ones who are prepared to engage in ritualised confrontations with the police at demonstrations, etc. would stand little chance aga inst their local crims.

But the evolution we need to pursue does have to involve lessening the power of the violent, state or not state based. Like the anti-dealer patrols that the IWCA in Oxford has been doing, and we must be prepared to defend ourselves during this -- but the real defence lies in a mobilised and powerful communitry that can defend its own freedom.

“It's vital that we, as a community, confront the crack and heroin dealers. If we don't then we are effectively giving them permission to use our streets to sell drugs to our kids.”

http://www.iwca.info/news/news0056.htm

Like you Lazlo (apart from your moments of mysogyny of course).

What mments of misogyny?

...twas a sad day, a cold winter's morn twhen Mr Woodbine cast aside his chrispness for more important work

Quoted below (without permission) from the latest Cunningham Amendment,

"FELLOW CHRISPS!

FREEDOM only counts when it's linked to responsibility. Every action carries consequences. The deal with Freedom is that you take responsibility for them.

LICENCE means anything goes. Do what you will and bollocks to the consequences.

Know the difference"

Well that's cleared things up.

Not

This'll put a smile on ya chops, I tell ya there's some seriously violent, derranged kittens on this site:

http://www.rathergood.com/lightsabre

http://www.rathergood.com

I would have to defend the view that a revolution, if I can speak of what I woulds argue is to come as that, as being something that would have to be essentially bloodless. The only way I could ever see a stateless society working is if the mechanisms of the state become unnecessary. This seems to require changes in society and individuals that we are not too close to achieving. Marx wrote about the possibility of a bloodless revolution himself. In a fair amount of Marxist thought, this is ignore, however.

I believe that Marx wrote of the difference between society-over-state states and state-over-society states (could dig up references from my old professor, but if anyone else knows of it offhand). Now, Marx wrote of the fundamental possibility of a society-over-state state making the peaceful, bloodless transition into a Communist state. Further, he wrote that this wasn't a possibility for state-over-society states.

My own contention here is that a state-over-society state cannot make any direct transition into any sort of anarcho-communist or anarcho-syndicalist society. Violence itself would seem to me proof than the state itself is still a necessity and will only re-emerge in the resulting chaos. The solution to this problem is that Marx never talks about the possible peaceful transition from a state-over-society state to a society-over-state state. Although some would contend this is not an option as Marx seems to speak of the transition of society to state, anyway. My response would be that if this is correct and if he was right then such represents an overall argument against anarchism rather than against bloodless revolutions.

Put simply, my argument is that anarchism can only come about (and, even more strongly, is only a morally good thing) if and only if the state is no longer a necessity. Human nature and society are what, as far as I can see, makes the state a necessity in our own times and it is in changing those that path of an anarchist society lies.

Of course, I cannot speak for certain individualist anarchists but I have deeper philosophical problems with that. Nevertheless, I am not a pacifist as I do accept that certain moral courses of action demand that the moral agent(s) engage in acts of violence and even the taking of life but will contend that these cases are fairly rare.

Be well,

Rob Mills

May I ask what attracted you to this philosophical creed and what your background is (no requirement to answer anything) Rob Mills. (Incidentally, I once met John Mills, the actor)

Thaw

I suppose that I accept this as it follows logically from my ethical, social and political beliefs. My background is one of Anarcho-Communism (though, strictly, I rarely used the title as it bears too strong a connection to state communism in many minds), studying political philosophy at undergrad with only a mild interest, generally. I supported government-minimalism and socialism but my lecturer introduced me to the work of Kropotkin (a little later, I was also to discover the work of Theodor Adorno, who has the greatest influence on my politics outside figures like Kropotkin or Goldman).

An analogy of my view would be that I see the state as being like a set of tools that fix something broken (i.e. society). However, just as machinery that never breaks requires no maintainence, so too does the society that has been refined to a certain point require no state to watch over, the state become useless. This view is part of the reason why I see the "revolution" as being essentially bloodless, I do not have the same degree of hostility to the state (as an abstract concept rather than particular manifestations) that other anarchists do, even though I strive towards its redundancy.

It goes much deeper than that, however, inasmuch as I also see that violence represents an essential disharmony in society and given the principles above, results in the necessity of a state. If society has reached a point where the state is redundant, there would be no real dissent from this as ethical and social responsibility in humans generally would have to be high enough to warrant anarchism. Ultimately, I think that the state will decrease over a gradual process and people need it less and less. It will go out, "not with a bang, but a whimper." My anarchism is strongly based on both optimism about life and human nature plus moral realism (the belief that morality is objective). I think that these are reflected in my beliefs on revolution and the overthrow of capitalism and the state.

Be well,

Rob Mills (No relation )

Malatesta - anarchism and violence.

hullo,

you dont mean to say that you think the state is neutral in some way do you? it was the state that enforced enclosure thus creating the working class and allowing for capital accumulation. the 'disharmonies' you refer to are the direct consequences of a really shite system which was born in the blood and fire of state violence. if the state was interested in harmonising society it certainly wouldnt act to reproduce it through the maintenance of class rule.

Am I alone in wondering what the point in having a revolution is unless you are going to shoot a few bastards afterwards?

If I am never going to get the chance to shoot Tony Blair Lemming, I don't think I want to be part of your revolution.

I think the discussion was about violence during the revolution, they'll be plenty up against the wall afterwards.

I know where your coming from, but we have to work with what we've got rather than try to find/create a pure unsullied group in soceity to run things (the new Priests?). We are (nearly) all distorted, perverted and damaged in some way.

For example: are you really suggesting that children force into being soliders (as happens in many parts of the world) should be told that because of the horrorific things they have done that they should be told that they are essentially useless to others now? Hardly effective rehabilitation.

In any insurrectionary period, there will be violence (just like every other day) and maybe a certain amount of bloodletting. The rich and powerful won't just disappear, but we won't win the revolution with greater military force, but through our abilities to organise and defend ourselves creatively on a mass scale with libertartian structures.