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?

  • @cayde6ml
    link
    221 year ago

    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.

    • @nervvves
      link
      14
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      deleted by creator

  • DankZedong OPA
    link
    19
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Muad'DibberA
      link
      151 year ago

      I def agree with confronting ppl if possible, because otherwise it almost gives them license to be a dick, because they face no repercussions. Even a minor annoyance to them is better than nothing, and will possibly prevent a future person from being negatively affected by their behavior.

      • DankZedong OPA
        link
        81 year ago

        I have to highlight the minor annoyance part here because I think some people understood my post as being violent towards people that litter for example lol. Confront them and talk to them if possible, don’t beat people because they throw shit on the ground lol.

      • @201dberg
        link
        8
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Idk about that. I have seen plenty of shorter individuals be pretty in your face and confrontational. I myself am 6ft and I do not like confrontation. Like at all. I get way too nervous and uncomfortable and it only is ever in an extreme situation if I am.

        That being said size definitely helps with being intimidating. I’ve only rarely had to use it that way. Generally I just avoid. I’ve luckily never been in a serious situation where it was necessary.

    • Makan ☭ CPUSA
      link
      -171 year ago

      This is wrong.

      I can see why people like me are being ruled by the likes of you simply for being 5’1 or something. You not only use your strength to oppress people like me, you think it’s somehow morally good.

      For shame. I hope I never meet you in real life.

      Go to hell.

      • DankZedong OPA
        link
        161 year ago

        That’s a bit rough don’t you think. I never confront people just to bully them. Quite the opposite. I just confront people because I want them to know that their actions aren’t preferred in the public space. You littering is affecting others. And I’m not going to threaten you, just say that your behavior is affecting others in a negative way.

        But thanks for your feedback, comrade. I wouldn’t ever want to make you feel bad.

        • Makan ☭ CPUSA
          link
          -101 year ago

          Don’t play coy with me. Big people always think that they’re doing it for moral or altruistic reasons. Don’t talk to me.

          • DankZedong OPA
            link
            111 year ago

            No prob. I will block you and leave you be. All the best.

          • @CannotSleep420
            link
            81 year ago

            Does being small necessarily make one less capable of wielding violence? Size can only get someone so far, and if that’s all they have going for them they’re a paper tiger.

            • Makan ☭ CPUSA
              link
              -71 year ago

              This is dumb. Being big only goes so far but it does give someone a clear advantage. I am powerless against them.

        • Makan ☭ CPUSA
          link
          -111 year ago

          I know this person’s type; I’ve dealt with them before on the other side. I’m not big. They are. And they abuse their power, time after time, and then make sermons about what “good deeds” and “good intentions” they have.

          I will have my voice heard at least.

  • @201dberg
    link
    181 year ago

    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.

    • DankZedong OPA
      link
      101 year ago

      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.

      • @201dberg
        link
        71 year ago

        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.

    • Anna ☭🏳️‍⚧️
      link
      81 year ago

      This is the best post in the entire thread in my opinion. This fits what Stalin said regarding violence:

      [Y]ou are wrong if you think that the Communists are enamoured of violence. They would be very pleased to drop violent methods if the ruling class agreed to give way to the working class. But the experience of history speaks against such an assumption.

      Source

      • @201dberg
        link
        51 year ago

        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.

    • 陆船。
      link
      141 year ago

      God I love fake Sun Tzu quotes.

  • @Kultronx
    link
    141 year ago

    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.

  • @Munrock
    link
    121 year ago

    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.

    • Muad'DibberA
      link
      41 year ago

      Just wanna say I always appreciate your posts comrade.

  • JoeMarx 193
    link
    12
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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
  • @whoami
    link
    121 year ago

    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.

    • DankZedong OPA
      link
      131 year ago

      I would have to agree. Talking should be the first and most important thing to do.

  • @bobs_guns
    link
    111 year ago

    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.

  • @nervvves
    link
    11
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    deleted by creator

    • @201dberg
      link
      111 year ago

      I would make an argument that politics is not defining what violence is but what is an acceptable use of it. Violence is basically any action or intent to cause harm to another party. If I punch you that’s physical violence. If i use my wealth to force destitution upon you that’s economic violence. If I point a bunch of missiles at you and say “you will give us your resources” that’s the threat of violence. If I own a hospital and then close it down in the middle of a pandemic in order to strong arm the city I to paying me more for the use of the building thats… Fucking evil? (Legit happened in New York during the pandemic).

      So I think we have a logic drive definition of violence as a whole. What politics is, imo, is what we find to be an acceptable use for violence. In a capitalist system it’s to protect the interest of the capitalists. In a socialist system it’s to protect the interest of the worker. Both societies have police, weapons, etc. Both societies use violence to a degree. It’s the way in which it’s used, directed, and justified that changes.

      • @nervvves
        link
        9
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        deleted by creator

  • @lxvi
    link
    101 year ago

    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.

    • DankZedong OPA
      link
      8
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That might be a good point, thanks. Although I don’t think I have any anger issues or internal struggles. There’s just a second of rage but I never act on it. It’s just the one second followed by rational thoughts. The only time I have these thoughts is when I get confronted with people being assholes really. Being homophobic, being a dick in traffic, racism, being inconsiderate, littering etc. But then I would also talk to these people first, I’m in no way a violent person.

  • @sparkingcircuit
    link
    91 year ago

    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.

  • @Shaggy0291
    link
    81 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.