Ask Lemmy

Not a big fan of violence nor do I condone it.

But here is some perspective when has something been won without violence?

Almost every nonviolent movement has been paired with a violent/threatening/defender movement. Then when the people in power attacked the nonviolent movement the public started siding with them and change happened because it was either give some of the nonviolent movements wants or the violent movement was going to make things worse.

One of the main reasons any and everything is hard to get off the ground now. Is media, power, and government people have learned to spin all nonviolent movement to be associated with violence or crush them immediately with force then spin it in the news. Also they have learned how to co opt and blame

George Floyd protests had outside aggravators(cia/fbi/cops) then media associates violence or property damage as a part of the cause, combine that with terrible messaging from coopted power structures then power trapped the chance of the law changing and really nothing major came from it. That along with cops beating the ever living shit out of everyone to scare more and more people

I'm 52 now so I don't punch anyone anymore. But back in the mid '80s to early '90s I was one of a few skatepunks that ran around with some ofe the local Unity Skins. We did a fair bit of nazi punching (and ax handling). This was toward the end of lace codes and wearing patches on bomber jackets. I'm not sure we changed anyone's mind but for a few years, no one was rocking confederate flags or white laces in the open. But I'm just some random guy online so take everything I say with a grain of salt.

(White, red, and yellow laces still give me pause. My teen came home one day wearing yellow laces and we had to have a talk. After some fact checking, and him explaining some stuff, I let it go and got a pair of yellows for my boots. Funny how things change over time and areas).

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.

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

Depends on the context, and how serious and violent the Nazi. If they're just an isolated idiot who isn't politically active and isn't stupid or thick-headed enough to actually follow through on their claimed beliefs, then violence isn't really justified. They're an idiot, but not a threat. The problem is with anymore more dedicated or crazy than that. Past that point, you immediately get to people who want to murder or enslave hundreds of millions. Thats not hyperbolic, that's literally the goal of Nazi beliefs, and a logical extention of almost every belief that stems out of it or is adjacent to it. In theory, yes, it'd be nice to be able to talk down people like this, or use existing systems of power to force them to places where there isn't a risk of them trying to murder or enslave people, but unfortunately, when you're talking about groups who don't respect human lives, the law, or anyone but their designated, arbitrary in-group, then those aren't always viable means. This is esspecially true if that person is already in a potition of power. Basically, if someone wants to kill you, you can't always wait for them to successfully aquire the means to do so before acting. This isn't hyperbole or metaphor, this is literally what we're talking about here. The problem is in drawing a line of who is an actual threat, and if there are other means to "disarm" them.

That’s funny because I read a book (The Failure of Nonviolence) that pretty convincingly argues that no movement has truly accomplished its goals without either outright violence or relying on the threat of violence from aligned parties.

There was a Proud Boys rally in my city just a few years ago. I went with a bunch of other queers specifically to punch some Nazis in protest.

Non-violence notoriously does not work against violent aggressors. Like Nazis.

If they symathise with nazi ideology, I'll punch them for sure.

However most people I've seen that use those symbols are simply misinformed about the nazi ideology. I think that not knowing isn't wrong; not learning is.

I’m not gonna do punch anyone but I’d unrepentantly nullify any nazi punching trial jury i end up on. If the movement develops legs that carry it in the wrong direction, I’ll cease supporting it. For now, I’ll grin at the pain of the deplorables.

punching nazis is a meme at this point, which may sound good on paper, but in practice just mean the non-nazi going to jail and getting a criminal record

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 think it varies a lot by the user. I think (hope) most people are just joking, but I'm sure we have a number of people who aren't joking.

But also keep in mind we absolutely have propaganda bots and trolls here. They're quite good at directing the hivemind, even without the assistance of complete loons.

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…