13

At what point do you think violence is Justified?

Submitted by succtales_backup in Anarchism

I've been thinking about this question quite a bit lately, 

and I know that the answer varies greatly from person to person. On one extreme you have people who don't feel a need to justify violence, and on the other extreme, people who think violence cannot be justified.

I myself think that violence, like hierarchy, must meet a burden of proof to be considered justified, and that is if it is social violence, if Noncombatants are left unharmed, and if said noncombatants are proletariat. If it does not meet all three, than I don't think it's justified.

Now that My stance on the matter is out of the way, what's yours?

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

8

dele_ted wrote

The way i see it, there's defensive and offensive force (violence is a form of force). Using force to suppress, exploit or dominate others classifies as offensive, while protecting yourself against this by fighting back (with violence or other types of force) classifies as defensive.

Defensive force is justified. Offensive force is not.

4

selver wrote (edited )

I think that question is too context dependent. I don't really buy into any of the universal theoretical principles surrounding it.

Whether it's justified or not might not even be the most important question. There's an ugliness to it whether you can justify it or not. For example, how does using violence make one feel? How does it affect one emotionally? Is the potential trauma worth it, is it a good way to live? Etc.

I tend to not judge people too much in a justified/unjustified sense. Voice of the unheard and all that. I can understand the impulse.

4

AudibleAnarchist wrote

For something to be justified, there has to be someone to justify it too. Who is that and do we really care about their opinion.

Ex: A Pig witnesses a altercation between a fash and a decent human being. To him the fash is justified and the decent person isn't even thought they both punched the other once.

They can do this because they are the authority to whom the violence has to be justified.

3

jadedctrl wrote

I think any violence that has a positive or neutral result is moral— like destroying capital (good praxis), immediate self-defense (restrained and minimal as possible), or attacking fascists (good praxis; self-defense [they'll use much more violence when in power, so attacking them to stifle such ambitions helps lead to a comparatively positive result]).

2

Cosmicsloth42 wrote

I think if people want to use violence to defend themselves that's fine. Personally I am a pacifist so I would never use force, but violence and more specifically self-defense is a personal decision.

1

dele_ted wrote

Do you think that attacking a cop, destroying a government building or similar acts of offensive defense against state and capital is justified?

1

ConnieCommie wrote

When your idealogy would directly kill and harm more people than me beating you up would.

1

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

Only you can know when it is right or when it is wrong. Now whether it will be effective in a particular instance is much more complicated.

Instead of asking for justification for the legitimate use of violence word the questiton like 'will this instance of violence help me right now or will it only make things more difficult'.

Because to allow or perform violence against other is to accept that very violence into yours. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

Violence is just a reality that living beings must experience. There is no avoiding it. But by being more conscious of our actions we can use this reality as a tool when the need arises.

1

tamarack wrote

To paraphrase the proposed Constitution of the Atlantic Republic (publication forthcoming, along with a book outlining the policies and theories of Northern secession, later this year):

"Everyone has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, for the defense of family and property, for the defense of the community, and for the taking of game; and while this right shall not be abridged, so too shall anyone asserting it be responsible for its abuse."

Put another way, punching up (i.e., committing violence against those higher than you on the power ladder) is always justified. Punching down (i.e., using a superior position on the power ladder to inflict violence) is never justified.

1

Franz_trashka wrote

That's a pretty good standard. Personal take is that violence is justified when you can justify it to yourself. I have no qualms throwing a punch if words fail to defuse or If someone commits violence against someone in my group.