Daily Anarchist Forum
May 26, 2019, 06:34:11 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Poll
Question: Violence
I'm a Pacifist - 2 (8.7%)
I believe in self defence - 16 (69.6%)
Violence is acceptable to use in the overthrow of the State - 3 (13%)
Violence is not acceptable - 0 (0%)
Other (clarify) - 2 (8.7%)
Total Voters: 23

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
  Print  
Author Topic: Violence?  (Read 13948 times)
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« on: December 21, 2012, 12:26:18 PM »

I'm curious to see what percentage of the site think that violence is acceptable to use in the overthrow of the State.
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
BobRobertson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 495



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 21, 2012, 12:39:00 PM »

Needs to be slightly different wording then.

It is possible to believe in defense of self and others, and consider defending against agents of the state to be within that definition of "defense".

How to put this? "I ignore the state, rather than overthrow it, and if the state decides to force themselves upon me then I am justified using self defense against agents of the state."

I'm not saying that's me, I'm saying that it fits kind of in the middle between "private" self defense and "violence" against the state.

Anyway.
Logged
dpalme
Solder Monkey
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 798



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2012, 01:13:52 PM »

Violence to over throw the state would only work if everyone wanted to help, which we all know they don't. I'm with Seth when it comes to the whole over throwing thing: Starve the state economically.
Logged

http://cur.lv/fgf0 <--- Accepting bitcoins!
bsg1206
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 52


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2012, 01:37:25 PM »

I just hope the state doesn't come down for a little while. Not enough people know that the state is what is to blame for most of our problems and a new one would just be erected in its place.
Logged
helio
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 571



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2012, 06:30:00 PM »

In order to overthrow the state with violence,  there would have to be enough people to make it happen;  If you have enough people to overthrow the state with violence, you have enough people to end the state through non-violent civil disobedience.
Logged

"Fire in the head, peace in the heart."  -Samael
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2012, 06:58:50 PM »

So far I'm the only one who said it's acceptable to use violence to overthrow the state.

Unless you know what you're doing, though, it's probably a poor ass strategy, at least at this point in the game.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
Tear-Down-the-Wall
Mr. Edgar Friendly
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 434


Mother should I trust the government?


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: December 21, 2012, 07:40:21 PM »

Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.
Logged

This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back.

You take the blue pill- the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.

You take the red pill- you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
State-God
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 670



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: December 21, 2012, 10:58:07 PM »

I was kinda in a rush earlier, so I just voted and didn't post.

My main qualm with a violent overthrow of the State is just how many people are involved in the scheme. The millions of postal workers, judges and police officers who all are technically stealing, but may very well be well-intentioned people. My point being that under a very strict view of justice they all deserve to be shot- they're all cogs in a machine that's been stealing for thousands of years.

But A) It's not practical and B) I'm not completely convinced it's moral. I'd say that a violent overthrow might be justified in a worst-case scenario of, say, the State threatening to nuke areas that became Free Territories. But aside from defending oneself from aggression I don't see violence as moral or practical in the overthrow of the State.

EDIT: Another problem I forsee is revolutionary ferver running amock. We've seen, quite frequently, how after a revolution people's envy and hatred leads to them settling old scores under the banner of "rooting out counterrevolutionary dissent". Now, of course, most revolutions nowadays are Communists overthrowing other Communists, but people are people and even in an anarchist revolution I could see it happening.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2012, 11:03:32 PM by State-God » Logged

"[In a Socialist Commonwealth] the wheels will turn, but will run to no effect." - Ludwig von Mises
ff42
Full Member
***
Posts: 186


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: December 21, 2012, 11:06:41 PM »

In reality 'the State' doesn't exist, it is just individuals who have been conditioned to think a certain way lead by evil individuals.   If one eliminates an evil leader then 1) Another leader comes along and 2) the conditioned think that not only is 1) the correct thing to do, but also that one ought to be punished for eliminating an evil person.

Logged
Twilight Sparkle
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 73



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: December 22, 2012, 12:29:28 AM »

For the abolition of the state I agree with State-God, a violent revolution will eventually get messy, Also could lead to certain counter-revolutions. If you are familiar with Russian history during the October revolution Vladimir Lenin founded a group called "Cheka" which were involved in suppressing other political groups including the Russian monarchist league, Also they silenced any criticisms of the Bolshevik's (including one instance of murdering a clown on stage in Petrograd). So unless the revolution wants to become totalitarian you gonna have trouble organizing it under the state's nose.
Logged

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche

"Behind the honeyed but patently absurd pleas for equality is a ruthless drive for placing themselves (the elites) at the top of a new hierarchy of power." -Murray Rothbard
Disengage
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 331


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 22, 2012, 10:08:09 AM »

I chose the defensive violence option, but it doesn't really fit my stance very well.

First, there is no state.

Violence against the state is violence against people*.    Folks tend to lose sight of that in discussions like these.   

While I don't believe that defensive violence against the state's agents is immoral or even wrong, I DO believe that such violence does more harm than good... for all parties involved and even those who AREN'T involved.    The state's agents are better trained, better armed, and more numerous.   Picking a fight with them is suicide.   Fighting back (with violence) when they pick a fight with you is also suicide except in very rare circumstances.    Justifiable, yes, but the end result will be the same.  You can't really bask in all that righteous fury when you're dead.   Or maybe you can, I don't know, but you'll still be dead.    But hey, you have a right to end your life in whatever way you want.    Doing so in this manner will likely  have negative consequences for people who share your beliefs (or your neighborhood).

And it WON'T help anything.

I'm not saying that victims don't have the right to defend themselves, but I am saying that such defense is DEFENSE.   It is NOT "bringing down the state" or "striking a blow for anarchy" or any such political motivations.  Sure, people will tend to attach such labels to it after the fact, but if you're involved in a defensive action to achieve some kind of political goal, then you're not really defending yourself... you're just somebody using violence for political means.     As a defensive action, your goals are to survive with the minimum amount of harm to yourself and your property.    If you're in a rare circumstance where you can pop a cap in couple of uniforms and run for the border before they surround you and gun you down... go for it, and good luck.  But don't think you're doing anarchy any favors.   


*I suppose its also violence against property and animals (drug dogs), but I really doubt that's what we're talking about here.
Logged



helio
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 571



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: December 22, 2012, 12:58:41 PM »

My objection to violence against members of the state is purely strategic, not moral.  Don't pick fights you can't win.  Survive and keep the battle in the realm of intellectualism.  Granted, this is a violent conflict where all violence is wielded by the state, but our whole argument is that society shouldn't be 'ordered' by violence.  If a voluntarist or anarchist used violence against state operatives, that would do far more harm to health of our movement than if the state rounded up every last one of us.

The execution of the rebels in the Easter Rising of 1916 is a good example.  It wasn't the rising and violence against the Brits that swung the people, in fact that pissed off a lot of Irish, but it was the execution of the rebels that turned the people's attitudes.   

Violence will end the state, but it will be the violence of the state against its own people that will do it.
Logged

"Fire in the head, peace in the heart."  -Samael
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: December 22, 2012, 02:16:54 PM »

Quote
Don't pick fights you can't win.  Survive and keep the battle in the realm of intellectualism
Intellectually we've won the battle. The problem is you can't beat faith with reason. I seriously doubt we're going to make much of an impact in this realm.

I'm not sure if you are aware but years ago there was this big thing on You Tube where the atheists debated the Christians and Creationists a guy who calls himself Thunderf00t posted a video series of like 30 videos called "Why People Laugh at Creationists" where he debunked over and over again claims made by the creationists. The guy is a physicist of some sort, In any case there are still people out there who refuse to relinquish their faith.

The point is this. We are behind. If we are going to get ahead and win then we need to start taking risks. I'm not saying that blowing shit up is the risk we need to take, but it is one that we can.

If we maintain the Status Quo we are going to lose plain and simple.

We need to seriously think about expanding the black and grey markets. Doing nothing but twiddling our thumbs isn't going to get us free!

Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
Disengage
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 331


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 22, 2012, 02:33:28 PM »

Quote
We need to seriously think about expanding the black and grey markets.

Exactly.   

It'll be even better if we  can opt out of the state-controlled monetary system.    They WILL initiate violence against people who do this on a large enough scale.   And "large enough" is pretty small.
Logged



Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 22, 2012, 02:54:12 PM »

I tend to think that a lot of the fighting that will be going on will be statists vs. the state. As the economy gets worse you'll see the liberals getting into more and more violent clashes with police, much like Greece. And when the government declares a war on guns you'll see the conservatives getting irate.

The anarchists are too few in numbers right now and joining either of those causes to bash our brains out against the state doesn't seem like a good idea. That's why I so highly favor moving to New Hampshire. Sometimes you have to retreat and gather your forces.

Sit back and let the statists destroy each other, and hopefully when it's all said and done we'll be left standing and in a good position to ward off threats.

Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!