Violence must be organized and accountable to be just. Non-violence is always preferred, and is always the initial approach.

But if there is a credible threat, defensive violence is OK as long as whoever is being violent accepts whatever accountability may come.

I'm conflicted about it, but the fact is one reason the US has been so successful in leading the world in relative peace (as compared to WWII and before, not compared to the ideal) is because we have so much capacity for violence in our back pocket.

"Talk softly and carry a big stick."

I mean… I’ve punched Nazis. I’d prolly do it again.

Maybe there's a good argument for nonviolence but "the means dictate the ends" isn't it imo. It could be that there's more to it in the book but presented as is I'd say it doesn't follow logically, I'm going to want to see proof that it's actually true which is going to be tricky because there are obvious counter examples.

The easiest one is probably Ukraine. I'm sure most Ukrainians want to live in a peaceful and nonviolent society, but if they took your principle to heart there would be no Ukraine right now.

I am serious enough that I have punched nazis before and look forward to a time when I can punch nazis again.

Violence is necessary for a functioning society to address those that reject the social contract that are not amenable to rationale.

Some people are more dangerous alive than the disruption their death would have caused.

I appreciate and understand that you are a strict pacifist, and that you feel it is a worthwhile life to follow, and I agree with you.

The problem is, in order for most of the populace to be pacifists, there still needs to be agents of violence to remove the disruptors who wish to co-opt or destroy our society that are not amenable to words.

Your ideology cannot exist in the real word as it will be consumed by other ideologies that do not eschew violence.

This is the way I've come to look at it: non-violence is ideal, but non-violence is one of many "languages." (Obviously here we're just talking about violence, but yknow some is political, some is social, etc.) Some people can speak many of these, some people only speak one or refuse to use others (like how you say you will only use nonviolence.)

The issue is that some people only speak one language, and aren't going to "understand" (be persuaded or moved by) others no matter what. A bigot only understands hate and emotion so they aren't going to be swayed from that position by logic or facts because they don't "speak" that language.

What I'm getting at, is that for people who only speak violence - non-violence doesn't mean anything to them except an easy target. They aren't going to consider your viewpoint because you won't fight back, they won't back down because "clearly you aren't a threat." They're going to violence until they reach their ends. With somebody like that, you have to "speak their language."

Of course on an individual level you (maybe) can get the police to handle it, but on a social level like dealing with nazis you have to keep them scared of return violence. They are violent by nature (the entire ideology is elimination of undesirables) and should be treated as such. Let them know that we punch nazis. Let them know they aren't the only ones with guns and unlike most of them we go to the range. Let them know if they wear iron crosses and shit they're getting kicked the fuck out. Fuck them, and let them know we'd be happy to fuck em up if they want to give us the opportunity.

I'm generally anti-violence myself, but I'm also a large guy so I'm lucky enough to be able to avoid it. I can't bring myself to be a pacifist though. Knocking some kid around is easy come take a swing at me and see how it goes. Shrug

I'm with you. Many of "them" want to get violent and are looking for a reason to do so. By throwing a punch, it provides justification for their violent actions. So many folks here indicate that you won't change somebody unless you fight them, but I've read and heard plenty of evidence to the contrary. One quick source is How One Man Convinced 200 Ku Klux Klan Members To Give Up Their Robes. I also heard an interview with a woman who grew up in a cult and how she learned how to "deprogram" people.

I like to think of it a lot like fishing. Once you get a fish on the hook, you can't just pull hard and bring 'em in. You need to set the hook and then reel them in slowly.

I became a leftist, because I got enough of the liberal "they go low, we go high" mantra. You never turn the other cheeck to a person, who will proceed to punch it again. In fact, if they once failed to do better in such cases, they're just want to abuse your fair game.

I've never punched anyone and I don't plan to start.

I'm not a naturally violent person and thankfully haven't found myself in a position where I've needed to defend myself or others from neo-nazis. But I'm sure I would if it came to it. Neo-nazis are few and far between in my country, but if I seen one get a kicking I wouldn't be standing in to help them.

An actual, real, self-confessed, Hitler-loving Nazi? Yes. I’d punch them until my arm fell off and then I’d borrow my friend’s arm to punch them some more…

Violence and nonviolence, in the face of violent, intolerant ideologies such as Nazism, or even colonoalism, is not as clear cut as it gets made out to be. I think primary arguments for violence are often misunderstood and taken out of context.

I don't think it's a moral question, as moral reasoning seems to lead to either 1. Violence is always wrong or 2. Violence is a moral imperative against certain enemies, for to do nothing is to permit and assent to the violence that they inflict. Neither of these absolutes are adequate within actual consequences, although both views definitely have to their credit historical circumstances where these strategies were arguably successful and progressive.

However i think there are important lessons on violence and nonviolence that can be learned from various historic examples:

1. Individual violence against individuals does not advance progressive goals. Individual violence merely strengthens the status quo against that violence, and can be used to justify mass violence of the state or militias against masses of people, usually a targeted minority.

2. Nonviolence tactics can be effective against state or military repression, but state and military roles in genocidal campaigns, or participation in extrajudicial violence shows that otherizing is effective at dehumanizing, and in order to be effective must consciously and effectively humanize the nonviolent activists to the oppressing forces in order to introduce contradictions into their justifications and create splits within the ruling classes of the oppressing powers. This is a long term strategy so you have to make sure that whoever you are nonviolent resisting isn't gonna just kill everyone, which they will try to do, even if it is against their interests to do so.

3. Violence may be immediately necessary to protect human life, in the short term or in the long term. The fact is violent repression creates the conditions for violent resistance escalation of violence sharpens the contradictions already present in the status quo and creates splits among the various classes in an oppressor/oppressed dialectic. In this way violent resistance can galvanize both violent and nonviolent forms of resistance for your side, but it also does so for the other side. Therefore violence should be avoided if possible, but if violence is perceived as defensive or necessary it can have progressive or even revolutionary consequences on consciousness and material conditions.

So the conditions that introduce struggle and violence are social contradictions, not necessarily a conscious choice by individuals intending to do violence, although sometimes it is.

So for my part, as an American with that perspective, I've become fond of the concept of "armed nonviolent defense." An example of this is the Deacons of Defense and Justice that proliferated in the south during desegregation. Groups of black men took up arms to defend their communities from Klan violence, and provided security for MLK, CORE; as well as forcing the Klan underground in the south for a generation or two. So organized citizens defending their communities and working together with political groups and revolutionaries to defend against violent reaction without the progressive political movement taking it upon itself to be a violent one.

This is an immense and complex topic and the rightness or wrongness of it is contingent on the historical conditions that are present. So understanding "correct" usages of violence and non violence doesn't extend from our moral obligations, but our obligations to the real world, each other and the future of our movements.

This line of reasoning kind of falls apart when you deal with someone that doesn't act on good faith. For example you can pioneer democracy and the will of the people and then let 10% of radical people use propaganda to brainwash 41% of normal people to take over the government and then basically breakapart the foundations of democracy and people's rights. The end result is a democratic path to the end of democracy and a worse situation for everyone involved. There's a reason people say you can't be tolerant of anti-tolerance.

For all I care nazis could be hunted for sport. The problem is, neither I nor other people should decide who 'deserves' violence and who doesn't. I'm not holding it against anyone to punch nazis, but I'd only do it to defend myself or others.

In a youtube video by Matt Baume, he discussed two types of protestors against offensive gay representation in the media.

The first group was loud and disruptive. One guy broke into the news room and yelled over the anchor about the injustice. Another guy handcuffed himself to a camera. It was a problem that could shut down production entirely.

The second group was calm and willing to negotiate. However, the only reason they were listened to by the networks was because of the first group. They even had whistles to ruin the filming if they weren't listened to. But they were, and filming went without a hitch after that.

It's not the peaceful path, but some people don't want the peaceful path. They want violence. Give them more violence than they can handle (or at least the threat of it) until they beg for peace, THEN take the peaceful path.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Non violence has never worked imo. At most it's a temporary solution, but even peaceful movements like MLK's needs a Malcolm x and black Panthers to show what will happen if you ignore the peaceful ones

don't use violence, if you value your life. violence is for idiots.

there's the tolerance paradox: you should use the least amount of violence that keeps society (and your own life) stable.

The anarchists cookbook is 99% misinformation, and outdated on top.

Personally I believe violence should only be used in defense of self or innocent people around you from imminent threats, never otherwise. Use words to fight words, use ideas to fight ideas, use fists to fight fists, guns to fight guns or knives. Straight pacifism to the degree of foregoing defense seems naive to me, but so does using violence for anything but defense from violence.

Depends on how much of a threat they are. Some random loser on /pol/ who will never leave their basement in order to harm anyone is probably not worth punching. But someone like Richard Spencer, who has a lot of reach and influence as a big name, I'll gleefully watch that one clip over and over with popcorn at the ready.

I suppose the more difficult question to ask is where to draw the line in between.