I'm not looking for discussions with or concessions by government.

Imo, the dissolution of both state and capital are necessary to move us beyond where we are at present.


Yes.

Let me explain.

There is no validity when people attempt to denounce, dismiss, and delegitimize groups or movements that choose to use tactics that they consider "violent." This attempt at blanket enforcement of non-violence, which has been a recurring them of protest/resistance for the past 50 years, has no validity and creates myriads of problems. When those who are privileged enough to choose non-violence as their only course of action, and then label things like property destruction as "violent," their position creates very real risks and problems for people who are not in their privileged position.

If pacifists are open to a "diversity of tactics," if pacifists take the approach of "I'm a pacifist and will not engage in behaviors that I deem violent, but I will not interfere with or denounce people who carry out such actions," then I think they move much closer to a realm of validity.

In essence, pacifism lacks validity because it seeks to conscript those who are not in the privileged position of taking a pacifist approach. It seeks to bind their hands and make them act in the manner that it deems appropriate. This restriction of autonomy, especially within the context of social struggle is deplorable. The funny thing is that the metaphorical "binding of hands" that pacifism seeks to create has actually manifested into self-proclaimed pacifists engaging in physical altercations with people who have committed acts of property destruction. When pacifists tackle other human beings for smashing windows or otherwise destroying private property, they turn the metaphor into an absurd reality and evidence precisely why such a position is invalid.



There is a group...the name escapes me at the moment, but I will do my best to find it and post it...who organize large groups of women to accompany victims of abuse, so that they may face their abuser without involving the police or other agents of the state. I assume that in the cases you mention, such an option was not possible. I will attempt to find the tract on this group, because reading it is truly powerful. A group of 25-50 women allowing a victim of abuse to confront her abuser presents the inherent threat of violence, yet allows for precisely the environment that some victims of abuse need in order to address this trauma in a personally meaningful way.


I agree...the carrot and the stick definitely go hand in hand. The position of being open to violence, however, is significantly more open that the position of non-violence as it is frequently preached, imo. As I've written elsewhere, I think that in sociopolitical contexts, the important question is not whether or not an action is violent, but if it is effective. If we want to see real change, efficacy is the only metric that makes sense, imo.

To give a few illuminating points about non-violence and the discourse it creates:

From: The Illegitimacy of Violence, the Violence of Legitimacy



From: Concerning the Violent Peace-Police

Surely violence is not needed. Imagine if everybody who was genuinely upset by HSBC who had an account walked into there local branch and explained that they would like to close there account due to not feeling comfortable with supporting a company which deals with organised crime.

This could ruin HSBC

But it won't happen due to the apathy of the general public. Most people will just read about it be slightly appalled and then get on with the rest of there day taking no further action.

Violence would not help here. People only tend to rise up when there living standards dramatically drop or they are being oppressed to breaking point.

I believe this apathy is the biggest problem in society not just politically but also with science and technology. Think how many Einstein like minds are wasting away playing world of Warcraft. I genuinely believe we could have solved so many of life's problems if people cared enough.

It's always someone else usually they or them that is to blame, needs to come up with a solution or is responsible for justice. To effect a change in society you don't need violence you just need to find a way to make people care enough to get off there arses and do something about it themselves.

In the UK we spend about the same on cosmetics as the entire global budget for nuclear fusion research. This just illustrates that as a society we are more concerned with what our faces look like than we are about securing a sustainable future for our children. People who truly care and are willing to sacrifice there time and money for a better future for others are a true minority everyone else just goes with the flow.

The current system is all centered around money and the control they think they have of it. The best method of protest is to stop giving money to the big corporations. Stop buying Coca Cola and Mc`Donalds, stop investing in blue chip stocks etc. Look more carefully where you are spending your hard earned. Buy locally off of small businesses instead of feeding the system. The power lie`s with us as individuals, it`s just a matter of choice. Hit the buggers in the wallet where it really hurts them. Don`t be lazy and go the supermarket because it`s more convenient and they have everything conceivable on the shelf wrapped in plastic. If what you were planning on cooking for dinner isn`t in the local store, cook something else for dinner.

Bluetung

That's exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. Vote with your feet don't buy into the whole thing where an individual has no power. Avoid dealing with company's that you feel have dodgy ethics.

Take Primark for example they are a UK company selling cheap women's clothes. Primark would copy the latest catwalk style and produce a very cheap almost disposable version. Women loved this as they could keep getting a new up to date outfit whenever they felt inclined without breaking the bank.

Why are the clothes so cheap? Simple they were stitched by children in a far off land and the design was just copied of someone else. Now when interviewed the customers said things like "I had not thought about where they were made" or "I just liked it because it was cheap and flowery" one woman was on tears upon seeing her "feel good summer dress" being stitched by a small girl.

All these surprised customers could have guessed something was wrong if they had stopped to think about how it was possible to produce something so cheap. This is usually the case lazy ignorance keeps a conscious clean.

When this all "came out" there was a bit of a commotion Primark apologised and promised to do better and kept there customers. What changed? Nothing

If people thought more about where things came from and what they were in effect supporting through the choices they made as a customer a lot could be changed. I like to buy things made in the UK or things which have some kind of fair trade community development program because I don't want to support exploitation.

We demand these rights for ourselves and then are not willing to pay the increase in cost so shop elsewhere putting ourselves out of work. It is so daft that it is painful to watch.

Every product we buy or service we use has the power to change the world we can all make our own little difference. You add enough of these little differences up by getting enough people to care and you have effected the change.

The trick is getting enough people to take responsibility for there beliefs through the little choices they make in life. Get people to step out of there own little bubble and see the wider picture.

I agree with this. I still do not think that it takes away from the power of non violent protest. It seems to me, and i could be wrong, that you have more of a problem with pacifists forcing their opinions of how to protest on others, rather their chosen way of protesting.



Do you think that the above quote detracts from Ghandi"s image as a non violent protester?



This is a very positive way of dealing with future mental issues that have been brought about by bullying. Unfortunately it is the exception rather than the norm.



I think that there is a possibility of this happening in the not to distant future.