Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

A_Lane OP wrote

I don't think that Pacifism is indicative of cowardice. Nonviolent resistance involves making oneself potentially subjet to violence.

My theory is that a series of nonviolent revolutions are possible.

I do, ultimately, concede that the State has a monopoly on violence. I consider this as a state of affairs. The far-Right alone in leagues outguns all of the Anarchist community. The strategy must, then, become either to ally oneself with any number of factions who more or less recieved weapons from either China or the former Soviet Union, which I think anyone would reasonably dismiss as being sort of dodgy, or, to try and get the military on one's side, which I don't think is terribly likely.

I don't think that an honest assessment of our current state of affairs is indicitave of a lack of courage. To me, it's just common sense.

1

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

Can you explain to me why and how you think a series of non-violent revolutions will happen?

You seem to be arguing a bunch of different things depending on what I question you on. You started off saying it was a moral reasoning to be a pacifist, now you seem to be shifting to a short-term strategic decision. Which is it? Are there ever moral justifications for violent revolutionary acts? Or do you sit on the sidelines because you don't think your side can win?

I'm here to tell you that your military assessment is incorrect, and your moral theory is incorrect. I stand firmly by that assessment.

1

A_Lane OP wrote

Do you think that the military can be convinced to support a violent revolution, then? I think it is the case that a military would not fire upon a civillian populace given a nonviolent revolution, but, faced with a violent revolutionary project, militaries in the West would treat revolutionaries as terrorists. I see terrorism as being unlikely to result in that civillian populations are galvanized towards the cause of Anarchism.

I haven't quite parcelled out my Ethical theories, but, I more or less think that Ethics stems from the Other. That others exist is what gives rise to that there are Ethics. It's sort of an amoral radical interpretation of the Social Contract that borrows a bit from Emmanuele Levinas. That probably doesn't explain much, but, I do mean for it to clarify my position.

I do disagree with the usage of violence on both Ethical and strategic grounds. I would say that revolutionary acts are, in part, motivated by Ethical ideals, but, that they have nothing to do with morality. While violence seems to strike with the immediacy that our global situation demands, I would argue that it does not effectively result in the creation of a better society and so can be regarded as both being ineffective and unethical.

I don't think that Pacifism necessarily involves being passive. Pacifists can still wage strikes and commit acts of direct action.

1

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

I don't think the military will support a revolution, I think the vast majority of them would fight to the last man to defend their mythos of empire. I don't need them to switch sides to win.

I absolutely think the military and police would fire on non-violent revolutionary actions that were actually accomplishing something - look at the history of effective strikes in this country and you will see a long history of police, national guard, and private mercenaries firing on non-violent protestors with very little backlash. This type of behavior has a long history, including recent history. If it's effective, it will meet with the violence of the state and capital.

The facts are that there has never been a successful peaceful revolution. There has never been a non-violent movement for change on any level that has been even moderately successful without a violent/militant wing. If you want your movement to be successful, you will need to embrace a wide diversity of tactics, including the threat of violence, and the effective self-defense of those people within the movement. Pacifism is the ineffective solution. It's the one being sold to you by your masters so that your revolutionary energy goes into something completely ineffectual and the system is never effectively threatened.

1

A_Lane OP wrote (edited )

I don't mean to deny the history of strike breaking or to suggest that there will be a total lack of casualites given a nonviolent revolution. People were killed during the Indian Independence Movement. I honestly don't know how I feel about risking that violence may be utilized against others given a nonviolent revolutionary situation. It would, ultimately, be too much for me to ask.

There has never been an attempt at peaceful revolution that seeks to bring about what end goals Anarchism strives for. To suggest that because one has never occurred does not imply that it is impossible for one to.

There are only so many caches of weapons in the world. The far-Right is armed. There are a litany of left-wing guerillas who were armed primarily by China and the former Soviet Union, and, there is the military. Seeing that an alliance with the far-Right is beyond inadvisable, if you don't intend for the military to be motivated to support a revolution, then, your only possible ally are the left-wing guerillas who were primarily armed by China and the former Soviet Union. Action Directe was able to maintain a more or less Anarchist position with such a strategy, but, I doubt that they effected any positive change. There were also a bit of an anomaly. I doubt that the left-wing guerillas can be motivated to support the cause of Anarchism en masse. As such an alliance threatens the cause à la the Spanish Civil War, I don't think that it should be too difficult for most Anarchists to dismiss such notions as necessarily involving objectionable concessions to Maoists and the lingering remnants of Soviet oligarchs. I guess I don't see how anyone could expect for an Anarchist revolution to be carried out without necessarily involving the military.

I also don't think that "Pacifism" is sold to me. The regimen of Empire is far from being content with my political positions. I would actually argue that they fear the prospect of nonviolent revolution more than they do a violent one. As other alternatives can easily be ruled out, and, the military is not likely to commit treason, violent revolution can only be resultant in adventurist terrorism. Such praxis will only result in that Empire seems to be justified in carrying out further repression. The RAF provided the justification for the militarization of the German police. A civil war in any Western country will only be resultant in similar concomitants. Nonviolent revoution would create a situation that the State is incapable of coping with. Violent revolutionaries can be systematically suppressed by asymetrical warfare whilst the majority of the populace consents to the usage of violence against them. The violent suppression of nonviolent revolution will not be supported by the general populace and is thereore a tactic that nonviolent revolutionaries can skirt with some careful planning. I see hope in that such considerations can liberate people from the "monopoly of violence" that the State does have.

−1

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

This entire response is just wrong on every level. I don't think I have the time or patience to teach you all of this stuff.....

Good luck in your liberal solutions. It's sad to know I have one less real comrade.

1

A_Lane OP wrote

I only addressed the pracitcal concerns with armament. Since I have seen no evidence to the contrary, I will assume that they still stand.

0

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

At least do some research before continuing to be ignorant.

Read Blessed is the Flame, then read about some people who were actually in real struggles like Franz Fanon, Dhouruba Bin Wahad, Assata Shakur, Kuwasi Balagoon, Georges Sorel, Russell Maroon Shoatz, Bonano, Robert Williams.

More advanced reading: Mary Nardini Gang, CCF, Baeden, Le Retif,

1

A_Lane OP wrote

What am I ignorant of?

I have read Fannon and Assata Shakur. I do think that people have a right to self defense, but, I don't really agree with the Black Panther Party's stance on it. I think that Empire is maintained in the West so that violence exceeds the conditions of survival.

The distribution of arms amongst black radicals, in part, provided for their usage by black gangs begining in the 1970s. I don't think that bringing up the Black Panther Party necessarily proves that violent revolution is an effective means of producing positive change. I would argue that their other programs and not necessarily their militant stance is what has been instrumental in effecting positive change within the black community.

To wage a violent revolution, you would need military grade equipment. I think that there are grave practical problems with obtaining that kind of gear. You still have yet to address my pratical concerns with waging violent revolution.

0

A_Lane OP wrote (edited )

To further clarify my position as you seem to be suggesting that it is motivated by that I, for all intensive purposes, pass as white, I don't think that it is my place to speculate upon what organizations like the Black Panther Party should or should not do, but, I am willing to put forth an opinion upon such matters in so far that they relate to my own political praxis. For instance, were you to ask me, "Do you support the Black Panther Party's Ten Point Program?", I would be willing to state, "While I mostly agree with it, I don't necessarily agree with their stance on self-defence." Were you to ask me, "Should the Black Panther Party adopt the Ten Point Program?", I would not be able to give a definite answer either way as that is not for me to decide.

I don't think that white Anarchists have a need for or will benefit from armament. Georg von Rauch may be a martyr, but, I don't think that the lesson to learn from the 2 June Movement is that such actions should be emulated. To me, they were just sort of tragic.

Since you brought this up, here's Fred Hampton on The Weather Underground: https://vimeo.com/1365887

1

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

Did the viet cong need "military grade" equipment to beat the US military? No, they needed basic weapons. We have access to many more weapons as civilians than the VC did, or than the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan ever had.

1

A_Lane OP wrote

If your strategy is some form of Anarchist sedition then what is there to prevent an insurrection from just simply being droned? A revolution necessarily makes an appeal to general populace and I just simply doubt that the general public will support a violent revolution. Without the support of the general public, an insurrection can be easily quashed through asymetrical warfare. The suppression of insurrection will condemned by a significant minority of the population, but, I don't think that such circumstances are likely to result in effective revolution.

0

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

Not being droned? By being an actual insurgency and melting into the general population. Which will increase the militancy of the police against the general public, which combined with increasing rhetoric of the left, will convert far more people to the need to defend themselves, and to eventually be willing to do whatever it took to take down the current system. Suppression doesn't work if the insurgency is sufficiently organized and isolated in independent cells.

2

A_Lane OP wrote

Okay, so, given an insurrection, what is there to prevent the State from just coming into liberated zones with SWAT teams? In so far that revolutionaries are armed, the State will be percieved as being justified in doing so. A few fringe groups may condemn such actions, but, I doubt that a majority of the population would.

I guess I don't think that the revolutionary strategy similar to the one used during the Algerian War of Independence is any longer likely to be effective. Precise strikes can be made without the overt forms of suppression that would necessarily galvanize a civillian populace. I'm not necessarily convinced that the cell structure is infrangible.

Say a spontaneous global revolution does occur and there are enough liberated zones to wage a civil war. Such a war would necessitate military equipment which again runs us back into the problem of who has it.

Any feasible revolutionary strategy seems to necessarily involve an appeal to that the military defects to a civillian populace. In so far that acts of violence are carried out, whether or not a person believes them to be, they will be regarded as acts of terrorism. The only terrorist attack that I can think of that may have effected positive change was the ETA bombing of Luis Carrero Blanco which, in part, forced the Spanish transition to democracy, but, did nothing to advance their cause.

Left-wing terrorism in the 1970s and 80s was tragic, but, it was just that. I don't see how such actions have at all effected positive change. If anything, they provided for the justification for the further militarization of the police and the diffusion of the military into civillian society. Such circumstances are an aporia and not a long tradition of defiance that ought to be celebrated.

0

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

Again, you seem to have no idea of what I'm talking about. An insurgency holds no territory. There is nowhere to send SWAT teams, bomb or drone.

I don't feel this is an effective use of time as you don't seem to be able to understand what I"m saying. Have fun on the sidelines, liberal.

2

A_Lane OP wrote

How does an insurgency hold no territory? People exist within space. A person will be at a location at a point in time. You are correct in your assumption that I do not understand how an insurgency exists somehow outside of space. There will be areas where insurgents are. Those places can be targeted.

Let's say that a spontaneous revolution comes from everywhere simultaneously. Why wage violent revolution at all given such favorable circumstances?

0

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

Fuck the """general public."""

1

A_Lane OP wrote

As much as a person may find themselves to be stifled by the hoi polloi, any revolutionary strategy necessarily makes an appeal to commoners. Such tactics do harbor the danger of being Populist, and, I would find for a critique of them to be quite welcome.

0