Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheNerdyAnarchist OP wrote (edited )

One thought I had was to approach the subject of the various forms of violence that are not only accepted, but celebrated as the entire purpose of certain subreddits (e.g. fight video subreddits, "JusticeServed", instant karma, etc.) - Same thing in terms of right-wing subreddits that show videos of "crimes" and discuss the things the State should do to the people doing it.

I'm just ill equipped to put together something like this because it would be a pretty heavy theoretical bent on what violence is and what makes certain forms acceptable and others not.

5

ChaosAnarchy wrote (edited )

As discussed in one of Peter Gelderloos works (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-the-failure-of-nonviolence), a lot of people have different definitions on what is violence or not.

(...)

Perhaps the most important argument against non-violence is that violence as a concept is ambiguous to the point of being incoherent. It is a concept that is prone to manipulation, and its definition is in the hands of the media and the government, so that those who base their struggle on trying to avoid it will forever be taking cues and following the lead of those in power.

Put simply, violence does not exist. It is not a thing. It is a category, a human construct in which we choose to place a wide array of actions, phenomena, situations, and so forth. “Violence” is whatever the person speaking at the moment decides to describe as violent. Usually, this means things they do not like. As a result, the use of the category “violence” tends towards hypocrisy.

Max Stirner said on state violence:

We are used to classify the states according to the different ways in which "the supreme power" is distributed. If it has an individual - monarchy, all - democracy etc.. So the supreme power! Violence against whom? Against the individual and his "self-will". The state exerts "force", the individual may not do this. The state's conduct is violence, and calls its violence "law," that of the individual "crime". Crime, then, is the name of the violence of the individual, and only by crime does he break the violence of the state, if he is of the opinion that the state is not above him, but that he is above the state.

How is state violence connected? Well a lot of nazis / right-wing extremists are still in power or when Nazi Germany was abolished a lot were still in a high state position.

TL:DR (even non-quoted text of "The Failure of Non-Violence)

The state has the monopoly on the definition on what is violence, so Reddit can just say bleh to you

3