Author
|
Topic: Should Social movements become more confrontational (violent)
|
|
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 18 February 2003 02:08 AM
Well, there is a reason why democratic governments guarantee the right of peaceful protest.It's one thing when citizens of a country register their displeasure by rallying and speeches. It's another when they start rioting. The former usually gets a point made. The latter does not.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394
|
posted 18 February 2003 08:55 AM
My problem with this thread is: I don't understand its purpose. Has anyone suggested violence? I haven't seen it. Is there any indication that social movements might become more violent? Less so, if we look at the evidence. F15 moved 15 million people world wide. Crowds as large as 2-2.5 millions were reported. All peaceful (excepf for Greece) which is almost unprecedented on this scale. So I would like to know what prompted this thread. Where is it coming from? And where does it hope to go? Should we take a vote? All for more violence raise their hands? And then what? Some clarification from the 'author' would be welcome at this point. [ 18 February 2003: Message edited by: Zatamon ]
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674
|
posted 18 February 2003 10:27 AM
i agree .. no one is talking about violence. red herring. i think it's interesting that the last two threads that "the author" has begun (before this one) have been: - the consumption tax (an idea that shifts much of the tax burden from the rich to middle-income people and the poor, whilst leaving investment income tax-free), - the problems of Saddam or Kim Jong Il ("is there even a problem? Is there a time when sanctions are good? Is there a time when warfare is appropriate? Will the UN always work? Does it work now? Answer any questionyou like or make up new ones to answer. i am merely curious.")
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Boaz
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3694
|
posted 18 February 2003 12:38 PM
Violence: Destruction of property, harm to other human beings (whether part of the establishment or not). I suppose graffiti is not violent so Destructionof property is physically destroying something to the point where the property must be replaced/repaired.Militancy: basically taking a military form (top down command) and carrying weapons (from brassknuckles to shotguns) any other questions?
From: Washington DC | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
darkhorse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3508
|
posted 18 February 2003 01:48 PM
The question of violence is a tactical one. Will it advance the cause, will it be more successful than non-violence? These are questions one must ask oneself. quote: William Domhoff (from his book "The Power Elite and the State"): "...Liberals, labor, and minorities, despite their great numbers, never win much against the conservative coalition unless there is a fear of disruption and violence loose in the land due to the actions of strikers, civil rights demonstrators, angry rioters in northern ghettos, or students demonstrating against wars... I am asserting that social disruption, whether violent or non-violent, is an essential factor in any successful challenge to the power structures in the United States."
In the U.K. now, if Blair were to go ahead with the war, then the protest movement may begin to perceive violence as essential. In the U.S., the state has a monopoly on violence. Violent movements would simply be crushed in the bud. Strategically speaking then, it should be advised against. The fact that violence often works is demonstrated by Washington's eagerness to use it, but activists should tread more warily. One advantage of using violence is it would significantly raise the costs for the State in containing popular dissent. When the costs become unmanageable, the government will be forced to concede. Then again, they could just gun us all down. Remember Kent State? [ 18 February 2003: Message edited by: darkhorse ]
[ 18 February 2003: Message edited by: darkhorse ]
From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 18 February 2003 02:01 PM
quote: Violence: Destruction of property, harm to other human beings
It is interesting that you value property more that human beings. If someone pours sand into the engine of a bulldozer to disable it from destroying a forest, is that a violent act? If yes, then why is destroying the bulldozer violent but the destruction of the forest not violent? The elites never hesitate to use violence, including enlisting the forces of the state (army and police), to protect their positions of wealth and power (Homestake Mining Company strike, for just one example). Yet you question if the left is justified using violence?
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 18 February 2003 02:47 PM
But if pouring sand into the engine of a bulldozer isn't violent, then why would pouring sugar in the gas tank of my ex-wife's car be violent? If breaking a window at a McDonald's isn't violent, then why is it violent to break windows at a Mosque?If blocking the path of a delegate or occupying the office of an MPP isn't violent, then why is blockading an abortion clinic violent? I think it becomes a bit of a boondoggle if one tries to judge "violence" solely on how much we do or don't like the victim of it. I think it's far easier, and behooves the mature adults that we are, to simply regard all violence as violence and look for better ways. Especially when our democracy guarantees us those ways.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000
|
posted 18 February 2003 02:57 PM
I think, with regards to the anti-war movement at present, it would be self-defeating to take up violent tactics.Violence begets violence, and does not speak well for peace. Our movement will be most effective and most meaningful if we can delay or prevent war with completely peaceful protests and demonstrations. If we want a different way, we have no choice but to set the example for that way.
From: s | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 18 February 2003 03:08 PM
quote: is that violent?
Does this hypothetical action have the support of a majority? Or is it a small group of people who think they know best? Because a small group of people who think they know best could do the same thing to a food bank, a community center, or a family planning centre & we'd see it for what it is: a small group of people who think they know best. And we'd probably consider it violent as well. Why not change the laws instead of the store fixtures? It's more democratic, and you don't need as many screwdrivers.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 18 February 2003 03:17 PM
quote: magoo you know as well as i that the powers that be are not going to legislate the removal of corporate bodies
Has a majority ever made it clear that that's what they want?? It seems to me that those who favour "direct action" are usually those who also know that that's their only hope; their politics are never, ever going to appeal to a democratic majority. If ALF could simply vote away eating meat, they would. If the Xtian right could vote away homosexuality, they would. If the KKK could vote people of colour back to another continent they would. But they can't. I suspect your group of screwdriver-wielding activists would only be reaching for the screwdriver because they know that not enough other Canadians share their views to make democracy an option for them. If it were, why wouldn't they take it?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
hibachi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 956
|
posted 18 February 2003 03:30 PM
It is a somewhat interesting point.The United States of America The Republic of Ireland The State of Israel were all founded by violent action including assassination, murder, destruction of property, bombing, and war. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, etc. I think the F15 showed massively that our protest was peaceful, and wants peace. All over the world (except perhaps in the US) the State has an overwhelming majority of weapons. Encouraging violence would simply play into the hands of hard-liner authoritarians of whatever political stripe and lead to injury and death.
From: Toronto, Ont. | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000
|
posted 18 February 2003 03:38 PM
From the three examples hibachi gives, we can see fairly clearly that anything based or founded in violence is bound to remain violent. It's supremely unsustainable and precarious.For real sustainable success, the form, function, and end goals of a movement or action must all be in line with eachother. You cannot build peace with violence.
From: s | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 18 February 2003 03:41 PM
quote: but is it not the responsibility of those in the society to work in the best interests of the society in which they live?
Some would say that firing gay teachers or closing down family planning clinics is in Canada's best interests. I don't agree, mind you, but we'd better come to a common agreement about what the best interests of our country is. We can't just take 30 million opinions and start acting on them. quote: and what about economic democracy?
Does this truly exist anywhere? And if so, did it not originate when enough people wanted it? quote: democracy in the media?
People choose what they want to hear and what they want to believe. You and I are here, aren't we? Anyone who tires of the corporate press is welcome to join us. quote: why should i sit still because they have been duped into believing that the interests of "big money" are their own?
Nobody's asking you to do nothing. Go talk to them. Explain to them that they're suffering from a false consciousness. Show them a better way and try to convince them to join you in it. That's democracy. Doing an end run on that, ignoring the opinions of your fellow Canadians because they've been "duped" while you see clearly... that's not.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
statica
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1420
|
posted 18 February 2003 03:47 PM
the reason this question strikes me as strange is because it seems rather like someone intellectually pondering a question while overseeing the movement..."hmmm," the intellectual says to himself from his podium, "is violence justified?". the answer to the question lies within the group of people who are actually participating in that struggle and debating the tactics they wish to use, not from some abstract commentary from those outside of that struggle. if there is a larger, intellectual question here, it's how the larger community of activists plan to deal/relate with those activists who choose militant tactics (which sometimes get labeled as 'violent'). such issues as solidarity, tolerance, diversity of tactics need to be discussed. because whether or not someone objects to more militant tactics isn't going to suddenly convince a group to 'not do that'. they're probably going to do it, anyway, it's the reaction for the other groups that compose the movement that is important. if a group is militant, will/can other groups -- whether they ascribe to the same tactics or not -- still be solidarity with those members in struggle and the greater cause they represent?
From: t-oront-o | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 18 February 2003 03:48 PM
You seem to assume that our oligarchy is somehow democratically legitimate. Free trade, for example was rejected by the majority of Canadians, yet we had it thrust upon us. And the enforcement of free trade agreements, for the benefit of corporations, is violent. It has resulted in the loss of livelyhood, medical care, control of resources, and democratic accountability. Throwing someone out of work seems like a pretty violent act to me. The results of which are being seen around the world, and especially in South America, where enforcement of free trade has been most savage. quote: I suspect your group of screwdriver-wielding activists would only be reaching for the screwdriver because they know that not enough other Canadians share their views to make democracy an option for them. If it were, why wouldn't they take it?
If we were represented by true democratic process or institutions, screwdriver-wielding activists would not be necessary. Since we lack these institutions and are marginalized by the process, people are left with no alternative. My hypothetical bulldozer question was to address if an act of destruction of property can be equated with an act of force against a person. Can one intimidate, injure, or kill an inanimate manufactured object? Or is it that profit is the real target that is so objectionable?
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130
|
posted 18 February 2003 03:52 PM
This is probably an opportune thread to go on record as saying that Marx's from line, "KILL THE CAPITALISTS" really pisses me off. Not only is it juvenile, but it serves to undermine just about every point he joins into, trying to support. But hey, that's just my opinion. Carry on. [ 18 February 2003: Message edited by: oldgoat ]
From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 18 February 2003 04:04 PM
quote: In this argument, though, the dismantling of a McDonald's and its replacement with a community coop would be a very effective consciousness-raiser, no?
To tell you the truth, I don't know how effective it would really be. Big and showy perhaps. Make the news maybe. But effective? What's more, the right could make the same claim, as they proceeded to ("non-violently") dismantle some institution of their choosing. I think that claiming a "right" to such an action, when it would necessarily give the same right to any other Canadian, would be a deal with the devil. quote: If we were represented by true democratic process or institutions, screwdriver-wielding activists would not be necessary. Since we lack these institutions and are marginalized by the process, people are left with no alternative.
Are you suggesting that if Canada were a "true" democracy, then fast-food restaurants wouldn't exist? Or that there wouldn't always be some small faction of society willing to take a screwdriver to it? May I remind you, and all of Canada while I'm at it, that if you don't like McDonalds, don't eat there. They'll promptly go out of business and you can build whatever you'd like on their grave. That's an alternative that IS available to you... so why aren't Canadians, frustrated with our non-democracy, voting with their feet this way??
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 18 February 2003 05:16 PM
Peasant: Oh! Now we see the violence inherent in the system. Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!King Arthur: Bloody peasant! Peasant: Oh what a give away! You hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. You saw him repressing me?" Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The greatest, most concise description of our system ever.
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
cosmiccommunist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1933
|
posted 18 February 2003 10:37 PM
Statica made an excellent point earlier...this old "is violence acceptable?" debate is getting a little bit old and tired...when oppressed groups and revolutionary movements decide they are going to resist violently, the debates of activists go right out the window...the first time i ever witnessed violence at a demo was as a youngster growing up in Regent Park...the police had stormed somebody's house while looking to make a drug bust...as it turned out, they had the wrong house AND on top of that shot a middleaged woman living there in the leg/hip...when news spread around the hood about the police stepping over their boundary lines, people gathered outside the police station...eventually there were hundreds outside...and somebody threw a molotov cocktail and a rock through the window of the police station...i somehow doubt they participated much in the type of debate you see here...and i doubt they would care to...as for somebody earlier saying that socialism has nothing to do with violence, how did the "socialists" come to power in Cuba, North Korea, the USSR, etc? And if that isnt your idea of socialism (it certainly isnt mine), were the anarchist collectives in Spain not armed? if and when oppressed groups/revolutionary movements decide they have to use violence, the debates of vanguardists dont really mean much ultimately and by the way, im not advocating violence...im not a dogmatic pacifist, either...if you resort to violence at any point, you had better be aware that there will be serious repercussions for doing so because the state will use it as the basis for more blatant violent repression...it shouldnt be resorted to mindlessly by the same token i refuse to denounce those who do legitimately feel they have no other resort other than to resist violently http://loveandrage.pitas.com
From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Man With No Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3771
|
posted 19 February 2003 09:30 AM
quote from Marx - "Is It Violent"Let me correct some mistakes in your post. 'Corporate Owned' is a misnomer. Corporations are entities owned by people. If you owned McDonalds stock or a mutual fund that invested in McDonalds, you potentially were damaging your own property. Actually, McDonalds is a organization that licenses franchises. The businesses themselves are usually privately owned or private corporations. You need at least $1 million cash to start a restaurant. Dismantling the restaurant presents some problems. First, you've probably put 10 people out of work immediately, and from working at McDonalds, they probably didn't have a lot of money to begin with. That's not nice! Of course they could work at, by your description, a large appliance dump. Second, not all businesses need fridges, stoves and shelves. Most need a confidant public to spend their money, without worrying about yahoo's stealing their Filet O'Fishes in a cooperative manner. I don't this plan is viable enough to be considered violent.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 19 February 2003 10:31 AM
quote: if and when oppressed groups/revolutionary movements decide they have to use violence, the debates of vanguardists dont really mean much ultimately
It seems as though every time the topic of violence (aka "diversity of tactics") comes up, someone will point out that throughout history, people have needed some degree of violence to break the brutal yoke of oppression, and will bring up credible examples to back this. Invariably though, the examples are of people who did not have the opportunity to vote, who were denied free speech, or who did not enjoy a guarantee of basic human rights. How is a university student who disagrees with a war on Iraq denied his/her rights? How is an "Earth First" member denied a vote? How is an ALF member oppressed? Before these historical situations can be used to justify violence in the present, the present needs to be related back to the situation in the past... and most of the time this comparison just doesn't cut it. quote: dismantle McDonalds and replace it with Chompsky's (tm), an eco and labour friendly fast food place.
Hehe. Lemme guess: Noam "Chompsky" dressed in a clown suit and handing out balloons? Actually, why not put your Chompsky's right beside the McDonalds & let the public decide? If your food is better, cheaper, or both, then you won't need to get your hands dirty dismantling the McDonalds - it'll dismantle itself.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 19 February 2003 11:45 AM
If you're a government employee and you dis the government so much, why not put your money where your mouth is and work in the private sector? quote: Actually, why not put your Chompsky's right beside the McDonalds & let the public decide? If your food is better, cheaper, or both, then you won't need to get your hands dirty dismantling the McDonalds - it'll dismantle itself.
Your faith in the picture-storybook version of capitalism and the invisible hand is very touching, Mr. Magoo. Need I remind you of these little things called corporate subsidies and a corporate income tax code that virtually invites wanton abuse by anyone who has greased enough palms to get special exemptions in the tax code?
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 20 February 2003 03:39 AM
And what if McDonald's gets a special exemption in the tax code?It's not hard to do. Get a Congresscritter to slide in a provision that grants a special exemption to a "Corporation incorporated on the date of November 17, 1977, in the State of Delaware" and blah blah blah. Don't believe me? I'll find an example of exactly this.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|