The only war is class war
This is a really good article going over class basis of pacifism, and touching on its historical failure to undo injustice:
What about Pacifism / pacifist socialism? Is violence necessary to acheive socialism? What about Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi? audiobook
Some quotes:
Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?
It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.
But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.
- Engels - Principles of Communism
On the question of whether the armed struggle is the only path to liberation, I would answer that at least in the case of our country, we have no other path. And we think that in the immense majority of latin american countries, there is no other path than the armed struggle. It seems to be the same case for countries in Asia and Africa. In general imperialism counts on, in every way, joining forces with the oligarchy, of every country, to impede the democratic revolution in every country. And its hanging people with a rope that can only be cut by armed struggle.
Revolutionaries didn’t choose armed struggle as the best path. Its the path the oppressors imposed on the people. So people only have two choices: To suffer, or to fight.
Only against the ruling class.
Lemmy does. I don’t, but Lemmy will shank you in a dark alley for drug money, like an American Badger.
Depends on the application. It’s a tool that has necessary use cases, but just like you don’t need a sledgehammer for a nail, you can certainly make things worse by using it, or slip into excess. I support the right of the oppressed to use violence to liberate themselves, and the right of those to use violence to free the oppressed.
Everyone condones violence. People just have different definitions for the word, and extents/reasoning to allow it. Pretty sure even Buddhists are allowed to protect themselves through violence.
I don’t have an answer to the question but here’s an unrelated set of emojis 🍊🔫
I have long believed violence is the language of those who’s voices have been stolen. Take that however you will.
Definitely.
It’s a violent world. If you think you can magically opt out of that, somehow, you might have lived a massively privileged life (to this point).
That being said, look at all the people in the thread who are afraid to admit possible abstract, hypothetical support for something. On a hard-left instance, of an alt platform, that I’m currently using over Tor. That should be an indicator of how much actual will there is to brave a shooting war. (You didn’t ask if we wanna revolution specifically, but this is .ml so I have to address it)
The practical takeaway of the literal question is much more nuanced and subtle.
Never start a fight, but always finish it.
No.
Violence is stupid. In some situations, it’s just an output for one’s rage. In other situations, it’s a battle of who is best equipped (hardware + intelligence). Neither of these address the core of the disagreement. Violence only beats the loser into submission. It does not change their stance on the matter.
Negotiation, on the other hand, ideally, at least gives all parties some gains and losses. It may not be the end of the matter but it’s generally a positive step and should promote some degree of respect.
Maybe we never had it, but I think we’ve largely lost the ability to be respectful and empathetic to others. Even though we find to be of the greatest evil, I think, should be given some initial respect to try to understand the emotional reality of their intent.
I won’t write it out, but imagine the worse crime an adult male could do to someone. Something so revolting that the only “logical” recourse is violence. This is an emotional response that does not address the problems that brought this person to such an evil act. By ignoring the problem and beating the person down, we are not able to understand how they got to this place or how we can recognize this path in others. This is a brief example for the sake of time. If you look at something like genocide, I think the process does scale up but too complex to write out for now.
I condone empathy for all because we all as a species benefit from it.
Edit: on second thought - violence used to preserve life may generally be acceptable.
Some define violence as a strongly worded email. Handling personal disputes with physical or verbal agression is a no no. Peaceful protest are a yes. Be like Ghandi, MLK, Rosa Parks and others. Don’t be the same as the so called MAGA and proud boys in the US, or the UKIP / Farage twats in the UK. Just my personal view.
