Just how militant are you prepared to be?

[DotCommunist]

for the leftists- how far will you take it? I know I hate violence and find conflict quite distressing- however I have in the past been party to it by allowing people to do vengeance on my part. It is fucking grubby and reeks of complicity.

I'd like to say 'first at the shovel' but I know that large scale stuff would sicken me- to the point that I would go that pacifists route of 'oh god, we are just as bad as them now'

And yet they have the monopoly on violence. Sometimes it is necessary to wrest by force or roll over and feed the ovens. So where is the tipping point? Spontaneous uprisings have the terrible lack of planning that often sees them defeated quickly despite popular support. And yet planning or considering violent actions also troubles me- the greater good. I hear that phrase and my face comes on.

And yet, I know the histories of crushed peoples, Arawak casualties and so forth.

If they had fought on equal terms...

Where do we draw the line and say 'no further'?

 

[madzone]

I'm not comfortable with violence towards other people but as that Pankhurst quote that's doing the rounds on FB says it's property the govt care about. I'm happy to witness or particpate in the destruction of property in order to halt the violence being aimed at us by the govt.

 

[frogwoman]

for the leftists- how far will you take it? I know I hate violence and find conflict quite distressing- however I have in the past been party to it by allowing people to do vengeance on my part. It is fucking grubby and reeks of complicity.

I'd like to say 'first at the shovel' but I know that large scale stuff would sicken me- to the point that I would go that pacifists route of 'oh god, we are just as bad as them now'

And yet they have the monopoly on violence. Sometimes it is necessary to wrest by force or roll over and feed the ovens. So where is the tipping point? Spontaneous uprisings have the terrible lack of planning that often sees them defeated quickly despite popular support. And yet planning or considering violent actions also troubles me- the greater good. I hear that phrase and my face comes on.

And yet, I know the histories of crushed peoples, Arawak casualties and so forth.

If they had fought on equal terms...

Where do we draw the line and say 'no further'?

yeah, to be honest although i think there is a place for violence and can agree that sometimes it's necessary, i don't think we've reached that point and i also think any kind of the large scale stuff you're talking about with "collateral damage" etc would fucking sicken me. in general i'm really troubled by it. i find any talk of planning violent actions really disturbing tbh

 

[Looby]

I'm not comfortable with violence towards other people but as that Pankhurst quote that's doing the rounds on FB says it's property the govt care about. I'm happy to witness or particpate in the destruction of property in order to halt the violence being aimed at us by the govt.

I'd agree with that. I'm comfortable with the destruction of property but I would not participate in or condone violence against others.

That isn't to say I would never fight back in anger, I've got a temper...

 

[waylon]

I'm a soft cunt, me - I can talk a good one, but when the shit goes down I'll be hidin behind me mam's skirts.

 

[revol68]

it's a tactical matter not a moral one for me.

mass working class violence and property destruction, yes.

tiny groups of hotheads engaging in substitutionist armed struggle, no, even if I can understand the motives behind it.

 

[DRINK?]

i'll be making tea on the sidelines with the wheezy boys

 

[DotCommunist]

it's a tactical matter not a moral one for me.

mass working class violence and property destruction, yes.

tiny groups of hotheads engaging in substitutionist armed struggle, no, even if I can understand the motives behind it.

The problem arises when you find that a brief tactical well executed coup does not immediately convince the populace of the validity of your cause. We don't all have miami to deport deviants and r/w terrorists to.

 

[revol68]

The problem arises when you find that a brief tactical well executed coup does not immediately convince the populace of the validity of your cause. We don't all have miami to deport deviants and r/w terrorists to.

a brief tactical well executed coup has nothing to do with my politics, you seem to be mistaking me for some sort of retard Leninist.

note my comment about small substitutionist groups...

 

[Voley]

I'm not comfortable in violent situations but I've abandoned the concept of non-violent direct action completely now. 'Stop The War' (lol) did it. I doubt we would've even heard about the student march if they hadn't occupied Millbank.

 

[DotCommunist]

oh, fair enough. Populist support from the working classes AND a small soon-to-be rendered pointless rev. group who hand the power gains back to...

oh.

 

[ymu]

I'm not comfortable in violent situations but I've abandoned the concept of non-violent direct action completely now. 'Stop The War' (lol) did it. I doubt we would've even heard about the student march if they hadn't occupied Millbank.

STWC never did any NVDA.

Smashing windows doesn't mean it isn't non-violent. The tricky line to draw is how far you go to defend your ground when there are police shoving you around. That's an issue for those involved in the action to agree beforehand. Not really anyone else's business.

 

[BigTom]

NVP pretty well sums it up for me.
I'm not sure how far I'll go, I didn't get involved in any of the property destruction in the mayday/anti-globalisation protests thinking it was counter-productive and in any case I am by nature a gentle lad..
I want to believe that in the face of violence from the police I will stand tall next to everyone else and take a beating, but until my resolve is tested I won't know. I avoided any baton charges in the mayday protests, by luck rather than design.

I have no problem with destruction of property.. I have no problem with violence in self-defence either. I wouldn't want to plan any violent actions and like revol68 have no interest in leninist style small groups of armed struggle..

I remember wishing that they would develop those smell based riot weapons though, cos I have no sense of smell.. I'd be well hard in those situations

basically: I am thinking myself into a place where destruction of property and violence against the cops in self-defence is how militant I would get. I'll see how my internet hardman survives in the face of action.

 

[radio_atomica]

I'm not comfortable with violence towards other people but as that Pankhurst quote that's doing the rounds on FB says it's property the govt care about. I'm happy to witness or particpate in the destruction of property in order to halt the violence being aimed at us by the govt.

Fair enough innit. I can't see myself getting involved with actually smashing anything up with me own hands cos that's not my bag but I will in no way condem destruction of property to prove the point.

 

[madzone]

Fair enough innit. I can't see myself getting involved with actually smashing anything up with me own hands cos that's not my bag but I will in no way condem destruction of property to prove the point.

When push comes to shove I probably wouldn't have the energy to smash anything up

 

[Voley]

STWC never did any NVDA.

Well just marching fro 'A' to 'B' then. Ineffective even when an estimated 2 million of you do it.

 

[DotCommunist]

yeah, to be honest although i think there is a place for violence and can agree that sometimes it's necessary, i don't think we've reached that point and i also think any kind of the large scale stuff you're talking about with "collateral damage" etc would fucking sicken me. in general i'm really troubled by it. i find any talk of planning violent actions really disturbing tbh

And what do we do when the violence set in motion becomes a feeder of itself, if it does?

They will never give it up without being forced to do so. The ruling classes will and do kill to preserve the sq. The problem lies in judicious use of force. How quickly a righteous force can become a tyranny and so on.

 

[free spirit]

NVDA first, backed up by the use of force as a last resort as a defensive measure if the other side are taking the piss... I'll not sit there and get battered / watch others get battered too badly without defending myself, and those I'm protesting with. Strategic retreats to the pub are usually preferable mind, where this is an option.

Luckily I've never been in a situation where it's actually come to this yet. I've been close a few times though, and I'm fairly sure that putting obvious measures in place to show that we knew what we were about, and wouldn't take anything lying down helped persuade the police not to do anything stupid, which I'm glad about as I'd probably be inside still along with a fair few others if it had kicked off.

In general though the power of the camera, and press (including indymedia type stuff) is a far better deterrent to police violence as the threat that they'd get violence back, so confronting police violence with blatent non-violent resistance with the press in obvious attendance is usually a far better strategy than lobbing bricks from the back if preventing police violence, and making the police/state look like the aggressors is part of the objective. eg climate campers hands in the air, 'this is not a riot' reaction to the police moving in on them last year.

 

[ymu]

Well just marching fro 'A' to 'B' then. Ineffective even when an estimated 2 million of you do it.

OK. Non-violent direct action is not marching from A to B, it's doing something directly to improve the situation - occupying a school that's going to be closed down, turning up to greet the bailiffs and prevent an eviction, asserting your rights to walk over a particular piece of land, whatever. There'll always be arguments about what counts as NVDA, but no argument that A to B marches do not.

STWC were pathetic, and we can't rely on CoR or the TUC to lead this fightback. But there's enough anger out there. They'll follow us, eventually.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Anyone engaging in violence against either people or property is beyond the pale. The democratic process has given the country a government. At the next election, you have the opportunity to elect another if this one doesn't please you.

 

[Sasaferrato]

OK. Non-violent direct action is not marching from A to B, it's doing something directly to improve the situation - occupying a school that's going to be closed down, turning up to greet the bailiffs and prevent an eviction, asserting your rights to walk over a particular piece of land, whatever. There'll always be arguments about what counts as NVDA, but no argument that A to B marches do not.

STWC were pathetic, and we can't rely on CoR or the TUC to lead this fightback. But there's enough anger out there. They'll follow us, eventually.

70% of the populace support the actions of the government.

 

[revol68]

Anyone engaging in violence against either people or property is beyond the pale. The democratic process has given the country a government. At the next election, you have the opportunity to elect another if this one doesn't please you.

so what of your favourite war criminals in Iraq. what democratic process okayed their murdering of Iraqi's?

 

[revol68]

70% of the populace support the actions of the government.

Hitler was democratically elected...

 

[free spirit]

Anyone engaging in violence against either people or property is beyond the pale. The democratic process has given the country a government. At the next election, you have the opportunity to elect another if this one doesn't please you.

the government engages in violence against both person and property all the time though to enforce policies that they have no democratic mandate for.eg trashing travellers homes and property while evicting them from their own land.

this wasn't a democratically elected government anyway though, and the policies it's enacting have zero democratic mandate, so your argument is null and void.

 

[Blagsta]

Anyone engaging in violence against either people or property is beyond the pale. The democratic process has given the country a government. At the next election, you have the opportunity to elect another if this one doesn't please you.

How does that fit with your posts on the Gaza flotilla thread?

 

[free spirit]

70% of the populace support the actions of the government.

source?

 

[Blagsta]

70% of the populace support the actions of the government.

you might want to reference that

 

[Voley]

OK. Non-violent direct action is not marching from A to B, it's doing something directly to improve the situation - occupying a school that's going to be closed down, turning up to greet the bailiffs and prevent an eviction, asserting your rights to walk over a particular piece of land, whatever. There'll always be arguments about what counts as NVDA, but no argument that A to B marches do not.

STWC were pathetic, and we can't rely on CoR or the TUC to lead this fightback. But there's enough anger out there. They'll follow us, eventually.

Not getting involved in a splitting-hairs argument about what constitutes what is possibly a good move, too.

 

[frogwoman]

And what do we do when the violence set in motion becomes a feeder of itself, if it does?

They will never give it up without being forced to do so. The ruling classes will and do kill to preserve the sq. The problem lies in judicious use of force. How quickly a righteous force can become a tyranny and so on.

i dont disagree in principle but on a personal level? I dunno.

 

[radio_atomica]

you might want to reference that

I'll reference him for you:

YouGov/Sunday Times results 12th-14th Nov CON 39%, LAB 41%, LD 10%; APPROVAL -10

I did manage to get as far as adding up in school and I'd say that 39+10=49