I was walking outside with my gf on a pedestrian crossing when a guy on a scooter didn’t feel like breaking and almost hit us when crossing the street. I’m a calm person but at the same time I can feel intense rage with stuff like this and my first thought is to kick the guy off his scooter and beat him to a pulp. This, of course, never happens and I can remain calm. I did a civil fuck you symbol to the guy to get my point across.
I was discussing my rage feelings with my girlfriend and we got into a rather heavy discussion about violence. So, I get called gay a lot because of the way I dress and act sometimes. Especially in my smaller hometown. I said to my gf that I could reach a point where I just beat the next guy calling me gay for being a homophobic shit. She could not agree with me on this and she got mad about it, and we had a debate on using violence (with gay people, minorities and Palestina vs Israel as examples being used). She could follow me on supporting armed resistance in Palestina but she could not accept gay people snapping and beating a homophobic guy, which I can totally understand. Eventually we agreed to disagree, sort of, and we let the topic rest.
Which made me wonder how you guys think about this. Is using violence against injustice acceptable? Is there a certain line for when you can use violence and when not? We socialists fight against injustice, and violence may be a part of that fight somewhere along the line. How should we view the use of violence?
If violence is brought against innocents then violence is required to oppose it. There is no way to stop an unjustly violent person non-violently. It just is not something that works. Even talking them into a surrender is done via the threat of further violence. Peaceful protests are almost always only successful because of a threat of violence backing them. Plain and simple.
This is my only reasonable use for violence. As an opposition to unjust violence. That does not however mean you should always wait and let them strike first. If it is known that someone or someones are planning to commit unjust violence against innocents then it is absolutely justified, imo, to strike first.
Anyone that would oppose the use of violence to protect the innocent and fight back against injustice can come explain to me how else we could have stopped the Nazis? I guess we should have just sat down and talked things out with them while they mass murdered millions of innocent human beings?
If just violence is not used to oppose unjust violence then the world will only ever be ruled by the unjust.
I think we’re on the same page about this. Though I do need to add that beating someone for littering is not the way to go lol. I don’t think I got my point across very well in my post. But it’s interesting to see all the feedback in here. I’m a bit sad that some people feel really attacked right now though.
Yeah I saw that comment too. It seemed really weirdly unhinged and I don’t really understand where they are coming from there. The whole comment is unnecessarily aggressive and divisive when it seemed you were just asking s legit question on how we feel about violence and confrontation. Anyone that follows communist ideology should understand that violence is not desired but that it is necessary.
I also feel your post is about non violent confrontation as well and not many, including my comment, discussed that aspect. If someone’s littering or being abusive in or to public spaces there really isn’t any problem, imo, to confronting these people. As the public space belongs to all any violation of it is in essence s violation against all the people that use that space. As it impacts all of them. Is it justified to physically retaliate? Maybe not, but I would say telling them off isn’t hurting anyone.
This is the best post in the entire thread in my opinion. This fits what Stalin said regarding violence:
Source
He really was a great man, intellectual, and leader. It is absolutely enraging the way in which the west has violated the history of him.
Completely agree