Violence is a noble and useful tool, but its not a toy. I think that generally speaking, violence should be avoided as much as reasonably possible.

Or in a less deranged sounding rant: what do you guys think about confronting people with shitty behavior in public? I myself always talk to people if I see them being a dick, littering, injustice whatever. It seems to work sometimes and people seem actually ashamed when being confronted with their own shitty actions. But I’m also a 6’1-2 guy.

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.

Note: what I am saying is hypothetical and only of an academic nature. Unfortunately, I don’t think real change is possible without violence. In all the socialist revolutions, having a greater materialist control of violence and propaganda surrounding it was the deciding factor. However, individualist violence is extremely risky and not advised. Imprisonment is not worth it. Getting arrested or worse, killed, is a huge blow to the movement considering how much was invested in your life by those around you.

I think it is morally right for those who are abled bodied/strong to stand up for those who are not. You need heavy hitters if you want to win the baseball game.

organized revolutionary violence against oppressors good
punching individual bigots probably pointless

There’s a fine line between using violence for good and violence that is borderline terrorism.

• violence for good = sending armed guerilla fighters to stop KKK lynch mobs
• terrorism = indiscriminate killings *cough cough* Shining Path, ISIL, and Pol Pot

Your gf is right. You’re not wrong to be mad in the situations you’re describing. But reacting violently in those situations won’t really accomplish anything. Escalation isn’t really going to help.

The question lead me to a couple of thoughts.

First, that Jan-Luc Picard quote that “sometimes it’s possible to do everything right and still fail” applies where violence is considered a indication of some kind of failing. It could be a failure of diplomacy, a failure to educate, a failure of self-discipline, or all of the above, but there will be times where you do everything right and violence is where it ends up. Do the due self-criticism without ruling out the possibility that you didn’t make a mistake and move on.

Second, I think the acceptability of violence is a very subjective one. We all have very different experiences of violence both as victims of it and perpetrators of it, including times where we felt it justified and other times where we’ve regretted it. There’s so much nuance to the context of an act of violence.

There’s no one-size-fits-all answer. There’s just the problems you face and the tools you allow yourself to resolve them; not every problem will be solvable and sometimes the outcome that leads to the least harm being done will involve violence.

violence is sometimes necessary but shouldn’t be used lightly. in the case of the homophobe, you might try educating him first. “you’re saying I’m gay like it would be a bad thing. why?” then go from there. might not work most of the time, but you might be surprised.

deleted by creator

Anger is you reacting to something inside of you. If somebody calls you gay just say that you’re not. If somebody drives past you on a scooter disrespectfully just understand that that’s a thing that happened. Your reaction is a reaction towards yourself. The problem with violence is that people answer violence with violence. The guy on the scooter might return the favor in a manner you wouldn’t appreciate. If people are calling you gay you might not look like the guy who’s about to beat somebody to a pulp. Maybe your like of the ability to assert yourself in a healthy manner is whats making you so angry.

This post isn’t about violence. It’s about your unresolved anger.

Unfortunately its the only sound some people listen to.

I’m writing this prior to reading any comments to ensure that the answer I provide is my own without any contamination from our community.

My views on this have changed a lot over my life, but, these past two or three years, I have, more or less, held this opinion:
Violence is a tool, an unfortunate tool, but a tool none the less. This tool, while holding great power, also tends to have large repercussions. As such, when possible, one should use this tool only when they believe that it will make a lasting difference.

For example, violence when used as a tool against an oppressive system of government during a revolution, usually has a green light, (excluding acts of terrorism and the like, which usually just reduces one’s support from the people.) This of course covers self-defense as well. Whereas, picking a fight with a person you disagree with, tends not to be a great idea, (though material conditions very, and sometimes, it may in fact be necessary.)

In conclusion, violence is a tool, and should be used as such, though only when the material conditions of a situation call for it, as the repercussions of said tool are likely to backfire. A proper analysis of your conditions are necessary. There are always more tools to choose from.

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.