Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

17

sudo wrote

Definitely. We should never glorify violence - instead, our attitude should be that it's unfortunate, but necessary in order to create a better world.

6

amongstclouds wrote

Took the words right out of my mouth -- but there is a thin line between the glorification of violence and it's legitimization which should always be a major topic of discussion.

5

Yunlunuae wrote

Yes, violence should not be glorified as it's not the end goal. The end goal is actually the limitation and hopefully eventual cessation of violence, however it must be recognized that violence is exactly what is being done to the poor alongside PoC and other 'lower classes' whether economically or through state repression.

5

not_AFX_lol wrote (edited )

The trick with low-salience liberals is to get them agreeable on the endgoal, then once they're set on it, show them what's necessary to get there.

source: this is basically what happened to me

4

RosaReborn wrote

I agree with everyone here that violence is not the end goal and when it is used against the state, fascists, oppressors etc the end goal of promoting peace should always be at the forefront.

However punching Nazis just feels so good!

4

Cosmicsloth42 wrote

Massively. Enspeically when more and more people don't consider themselves working class anymore.

3

BlackFlagged wrote

I think people that are turned off to the idea of violent revolution would be useless comrades anyway.

8

sudo wrote

Maybe. I've changed a few people's minds about this before. A lot of them don't recognize that capitalism is being violent towards poor people all the time. Explain this to them, and ask them if they think it's okay to engage in a little bit of violence in order to prevent a lot of violence. Usually they will agree that it is, at which point you tell them that a revolution would be less violent than letting capitalism continue to exist. In this situation, pacifism is more violent than violence. That might change their mind.

Where you see a useless liberal, I see a potential communist who hasn't been properly educated yet.

5

leftous wrote

This is a good point. The sad reality is that this violence against poor people, minorities, and other powerless groups is considered normal to most people. They think "well that's just the way it is when you live in a bad (poor) neighborhood" or "thats what happens when you can't pay your bills".

2

TimmyCatChores wrote (edited )

Of course. War is easy, peace is hard.

Everyone wants simple answers to complex questions.

Just because violence is justified, doesn't mean it's the beginning and the end of a peaceful and rational future.

All the posturing of manarcho-brocialists is child-like right-wing nonsense.

We are here to do what the system does not. First in the list is the psychological needs of the people. The root of psychological needs is compassion.

Ask any manarcho-brocialist what is the function of compassion to humanity, and they won't know.

Compassion is the root of justice.

If your essentialist idea of the world begins and ends with: "RAWR!..SMASH THE SYSTEM!", either grow-up or get out of the way.

This is about a maturity, not of age, but knowledge of humanity and critical thinking.

Solidarity is based in compassion, and there will be no success without solidarity.

Anarchists are conditional-pacifists. They ultimately want a peaceful world, but understand they'll need to fight on behalf of the oppressed in order to achieve it.

You don't get by with one hat. You need both the peace hat and the war hat.

2

selver wrote (edited )

Yes, and it mostly attracts all the wrong people. Ie. tankies

Not that I care about the wide appeal too much, I don't believe our politics should be compromised just to attract people, but I don't think the glorification of violence is good for our own politics either. It usually takes on a Statist logic of punishment, judgement, etc.