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?

  • @Shaggy0291
    8•1 year ago

    It’s a sad necessity that constantly confronts our movement; that the powers that be will simply never surrender their power over society until it is ultimately wrested from them by force. In the final analysis this conclusion is inevitable. With this said, I for one would ideally like to win political power for my class with as little of it as necessary.

    This recognition of the necessity of violence doesn’t mean it should be a tool that is used lightly. On the contrary, we need to very carefully understand the pitfalls of violent measures and be constantly vigilant in their use. Like all forms of power, violence can have an addictive, drug-like quality to it that should always be kept in mind even in cases where its use is right and proper. Violence is only useful as a tool of class struggle insofar as it is controllable by its users, so if discipline in the administration of violent struggle slips there are almost always extremely dire consequences involved, both on a personal level and for the movement as a whole.

    From a propaganda perspective, violence can have an alienating quality if it is used in an excessive fashion, or if it is used at an improper point in the development of the political struggle. It’s only once public frustrations and misery have reached a critical threshold that it becomes easy for the public as a mass to become conscious of the need to resort to these means; once people have learnt through their own experience that negotiation is impossible and that the state of things will only get worse on their current trajectory, those with the will and motivation to fight will become open to the potential of revolutionary violence.

    Among the tasks of the revolutionary movement today, the primary issues are to accelerate the development of this consciousness, while at the same time preparing cadre with the necessary qualities to competently lead and control the movement in this violent phase of the struggle once open confrontation finally breaks out. Both conditions are essential for the seizure of political power from the current ruling class. Without it, there will only be devastation for everyone.