Violence

[Solnath]

All violence in any form.

[Tacolicious]

I think the world couldn't exist without some form of violence. After all violence is force and force is used to survive. Be it the violence in killing another creature for food, or violence inflicted against an area to make it more convienent for people to live there. War makes sense on an evolutionary level because it is a kill off of the weak (or just the unlucky in many cases) and because it ignores the individual since that scale of logic does not support the perspective of the individual. On a person level it's a horrible attrocity because we can't see the larger picture, all we can see is smashed cities and empty spaces that used to be filled with friends and family.

I think as a society we could create a more balanced system and that with that more balanced system people would have more viable options before resorting to violence to resolve those problems. I believe (but as Socrates would say "Wisest is he who know he is not wise") that most people given a viable violent option and a viable non-violent option would choose the latter. As things stand right now a lot of people see things that they want (security, prosperity and all the various forms those concepts are expressed in) and they see no other way to get the things they want aside from taking them from someone else. We probably will never be a non-violent species but if we learnt to direct that violence in a more positive manner then maybe that'd lessen the rampant bullshit seen throughout our history.

[Allama]

I agree. I would also have to vote no since war is a semi-good thing. Hitler got into power without violence, yet it was violence that brought him down.

Just to play devil's advocate here, would Hitler have been half the monster he was if he had been unable to use violence as we are posing in our debate here?  He'd never have been able to have his populace murdered and never have invaded Poland (or any other country, for that matter) as an army without violence would be ineffectual.  He probably would have been exactly as awful a bigot and made all sorts of economic and social sanctions against the ethnic groups he hated, but would likely not have instigated a war.

Ghandi is overrated.  He was only able to succeed only because two world wars had so weakened British military capacity that they were unable to respond with violence.  Let's be honest; if the British hadn't been worn down by Hitler, Ghandi and his followers would have been mown down in the streets.

That said, I am against most types of violence.

Allama, I am against nation v. nation war because its function is to divide the working class.  I am against person v. person violence because it is petty and ineffective in achieving the aims of the working class.  I am against state v. person violence because its function is to intimidate the working class.

However, class warfare drives our society, and I am in full support of it.  Its function is to increase class consciousness, and its end is the elimination of national violence, personal violence, and political repression.  Without class on class violence, there would be no progress.  National war is regresive; class war is sometimes progressive.

I don't believe Gandhi is overrated at all.  How many people have the personal strength to lead a movement like he did?  I don't value his wisdom simply because he was successful in his endeavors; that is almost a secondary point.  I value it for its own sake.  He had so much to say and so much to give to his community, it astounds me.  I would respect him just as much if he and his followers had been "mown down" because they were fighting for a benevolent cause in a sanctified manner.

*WARNING* The following paragraph contains spiritual opinions that may be deemed offensive or just plain irregular.  Pacifism tends to upset people. 

That being said, I agree that class warfare often benefits society and makes the world a better place.¹  However, I would not participate in it personally or support it in any way because I believe it would be damaging to my soul and to that of other people.  Human beings do not have the right to make the decision to end another's life.  No matter how wrong or "evil" someone is, they have a chance to change.  It may not be bloody damn likely, but it can happen and they deserve that opportunity.  The state of the body is temporary and if we must endure hardships here on Earth to keep from committing the greatest possible evil (i.e. killing people) I feel it is both necessary and worthwhile.  I cannot help but place higher value on souls than on the condition of the world.²

However, I do sometimes sway from the black-and-white argument I just made.  Sometimes killing one person (or a small number of people) can save the lives of many others and I am as yet unsure what I believe is right in such a situation.  Probably neither course.  To have the chance to rid the world of someone who causes much suffering and fail to take it seems wrong, but I cannot find it in my heart to condemn anyone to death.  This is a moral quandary for me and I won't state an opinion on it as I do not yet have one.  Any thoughts?  I'm almost positive everyone will say it's okay to do it, but I'm curious.

Footnotes:
¹Yes, I am a socialist.  If we can find a way to make it work, the more communism we can work into our systems of government the better.
²This does not mean I am unconcerned with the state of the world or the Earthly human condition.  Quite to the contrary, I believe it is our moral duty (and a personal desire) as members of the human race to improve the lives of others and end suffering however we can.  You can find ways to help do that here.

[Zimmerwald]

I don't believe Gandhi is overrated at all.  How many people have the personal strength to lead a movement like he did?  I don't value his wisdom simply because he was successful in his endeavors; that is almost a secondary point.  I value it for its own sake.  He had so much to say and so much to give to his community, it astounds me.  I would respect him just as much if he and his followers had been "mown down" because they were fighting for a benevolent cause in a sanctified manner.

But the point is to make change, not to feel good about the change that might have been made.  Gandhi (sic) was a political genious to utilize the moment when his enemies were weak, when he could implement his program without fear of violent reprisal.  However, his effect on world movements for change has been overal destructive.  People try to apply his formula for change to situations where the State is able to respond with violence.  Consequently, they are unable to effect change, and some of our best minds become little more than martyrs.  The only practical lesson we can learn from Gandhi is to wait for our moment, seize it, and don't let it go.

And let's look at Mohandas' primary disciples: Martin and Mandela.  Martin (Luther King Junior, obviously) was able to pull off nonviolence only because the United States was engaged in a cold diplomatic war, and not passing certain legislation could have seriously harmed the United States' image in the former colonies.  Without the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we would probably have seen a few more Cubas, a few more Angolas, a few more Vietnams in this world; the Act was PR for the United States government.  Nothing more.

Mandela used the same situation.  At the time he was active, South African troops were repressing national liberation movements in Namibia, as well as engaging MPLA and Cuban forces in Angola.  This same situation was what allowed the Bantustans to gain federal status in the first place; South Africa was simply too busy.

*WARNING* The following paragraph contains spiritual opinions that may be deemed offensive or just plain irregular.  Pacifism tends to upset people. 

That being said, I agree that class warfare often benefits society and makes the world a better place.¹  However, I would not participate in it personally or support it in any way because I believe it would be damaging to my soul and to that of other people.  Human beings do not have the right to make the decision to end another's life.  No matter how wrong or "evil" someone is, they have a chance to change.  It may not be bloody damn likely, but it can happen and they deserve that opportunity.  The state of the body is temporary and if we must endure hardships here on Earth to keep from committing the greatest possible evil (i.e. killing people) I feel it is both necessary and worthwhile.  I cannot help but place higher value on souls than on the condition of the world.²

There are many ways to participate in class warfare.  One of the easiest and most effective is the general strike.  Now, this is supposed to be similar to Gandhi's program of nonviolent direct action, but what actually happens is that the State intervenes with military force.  What began as direct action at the point of production (yes, I  IWW) ends either with a general bloodbath, or with the strikers defending themselves.  Class warfare doesn't have to start out violent; in a very few cases, it may progress without violence.  However, the class in power often makes it violent, and I believe that the working class has the right and duty to defend itself.  To follow your example, the people in power make the decision to end peoples' lives; defending your life against such aggression is what makes class war successful.  Otherwise, you just get martyrs.

That being said, it could be argued that the system of production itself constitutes a war upon the working class, which should resist it by any means necessary.

However, I do sometimes sway from the black-and-white argument I just made.  Sometimes killing one person (or a small number of people) can save the lives of many others and I am as yet unsure what I believe is right in such a situation.  Probably neither course.  To have the chance to rid the world of someone who causes much suffering and fail to take it seems wrong, but I cannot find it in my heart to condemn anyone to death.  This is a moral quandary for me and I won't state an opinion on it as I do not yet have one.  Any thoughts?  I'm almost positive everyone will say it's okay to do it, but I'm curious.

If you're using violence in self-defense, and you by some chance kill your attacker, does it not follow that it was the attacker who condemned himself to death?  Just as the bourgeoisie forges the weapons that will destroy it, an aggressor condemns himself, eventually, to be the victim of somebody who strikes back.  I'm not posting anymore, as this post is long enough as it is.

[Allama]

But the point is to make change, not to feel good about the change that might have been made.  Gandhi (sic) was a political genious to utilize the moment when his enemies were weak, when he could implement his program without fear of violent reprisal.  However, his effect on world movements for change has been overal destructive.  People try to apply his formula for change to situations where the State is able to respond with violence.  Consequently, they are unable to effect change, and some of our best minds become little more than martyrs.  The only practical lesson we can learn from Gandhi is to wait for our moment, seize it, and don't let it go.

I agree that the point is to effect positive change; that is not what I was contesting.  I was simply defending the fact that the movement would have a been a good purpose and Gandhi's vision would have been no less valid had it failed.

There are many ways to participate in class warfare.  One of the easiest and most effective is the general strike.  Now, this is supposed to be similar to Gandhi's program of nonviolent direct action, but what actually happens is that the State intervenes with military force.  What began as direct action at the point of production (yes, I  IWW) ends either with a general bloodbath, or with the strikers defending themselves.  Class warfare doesn't have to start out violent; in a very few cases, it may progress without violence.  However, the class in power often makes it violent, and I believe that the working class has the right and duty to defend itself.  To follow your example, the people in power make the decision to end peoples' lives; defending your life against such aggression is what makes class war successful.  Otherwise, you just get martyrs.

I wouldn't condemn non-violent measures to improve the balance of the classes, as it were.  Strikes can be quite effective, even when the bourgeoisie squash them.  Don't take martyrdom too lightly; often it's those groups that inspire others to greater action and get the message across that people won't stand for an injustice.

If you're using violence in self-defense, and you by some chance kill your attacker, does it not follow that it was the attacker who condemned himself to death?  Just as the bourgeoisie forges the weapons that will destroy it, an aggressor condemns himself, eventually, to be the victim of somebody who strikes back.

In a direct self-defense situation where someone is being attacked I would say the best thing to do is attempt to save yourself without killing the attacker.  This is, of course, not always possible and I have yet to formalize an opinion on this matter as well.  One must be willing to shift one's position even if it is difficult to reconcile with one's convictions.  Personally, I would not defend myself if it meant killing another person.  Death would then be my choice.  I cannot, however, say for certain that it would be wrong for others to choose a different path.

[The Empire]

I am generally against violence in most of it's forms but I would use violence in defence and I do belive I would even go as far as killing someone who threaten my personal security or that of those I love without hesitation, I might also go so far as to kill in vengance if someone I love is hurt intentionally by anyone.

[Saletsia]

And war is the highest, but most hellish, form of glory.

        


 

[The Empire]

^that's just the kind of bullshit someone who hasn't seen the true face of modern warfare says, there is nothing glorious about war, it's just mud, blood, pain, death, fear and shit...

[Solnath]

Who was talking about modern warfare? Bring back hoplites and war elephants!

[Allama]

^that's just the kind of bullshit someone who hasn't seen the true face of modern warfare says, there is nothing glorious about war, it's just mud, blood, pain, death, fear and shit...

Very true.  Warfare has always been a brutal thing, much less of a romantic struggle between good and evil than it is so often painted as, but modern warfare has abandoned even the pretense of honor or glory.  Individual skill or honor is much less valued by the "powers that be" than it once was, as it is often nearly irrelevant to the outcome of a conflict.  It's all about how many people you can blow up with one weapon, or how much of a chemical agent you need to "neutralize" the opposition.  Killing civilians used to be a horrible crime, but now they're thought of as necessary casualties, even if you kill more bystanders than soldiers.  Beating the other side into total submission is the name of the game, and no one gives a rat's ass how you do it if you win.

"It has always been a mystery to me how men can feel themselves honored by the humiliation of their fellow beings."

[The Empire]

And also, in modern warfare, most troops are nothing but cannon-fodder and mop-up crews, artillery in the form of howizers, mortars, missiles or close air support is what does the difference, and there is nothing glourious with being cut in half by a spinning 10lb shard of glowing artillery-shell or getting your lower body ripped to shreds by a land-mine

[Allama]

Agreed.  Most countries say they respect and value their soldiers, but little do the people realize how they're being used in battle.  We seem to favor the "throw a bunch of men at them and hope not as many of ours die in the explosions" method.

[Dysanii]

Right, not like that's ever happened before...if anything soldiers do get more respect now. Do you see lines of American soldiers marching blindly into a storm of militant fire? Or hordes of thousands of men running at each other and hacking themselves to pieces? (á la Braveheart).

Sure, its a different kind of warfare now, but they sure as hell lost more men in WWI ("over the top, lads!"), were waves of men were cut down, and thousands of soldiers where sent to their deaths. At least now there are reports of men dying at the worst in the dozen, not to the thousand.

But, yes, there are more civilian casualties now - oh wait, did I mention men of the mighty Hezbollah hide in schools full of children?

[Allama]

The World Wars are usually considered to be "modern wars" and I believe we were including them in our discussion.

[Dysanii]

The World Wars are usually considered to be "modern wars" and I believe we were including them in our discussion.

Oh. My bad. Well, the same tactic was used in the American Wars of Independence, American & English Civil Wars etc...so just substitute it for those.