Juice

If I ever got to wear medieval knights armor I would also masturbate, so I have some common ground with her

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.

When you absolutely, positively know nothing about Marx, his ideas, or what he actually said. I will never understand why Marx's critics refuse to engage with his ideas. 90% of criticisms against Marx can be shown to be directly addressed in the opening paragraphs of his most famous works, proving comments like these to be just repeated dogma by people so confident that others haven't read him that they feel like they can get away with repeating said dogma, and the "right people" like capitalist toadies such as bosses and conservative academics will nod their approval.

Don't pretend you've done any "intellectual exercise" wrt Marx. Those of us who have read him and bothered to try to understand him can see through your sad "call and respond" approach to political education. Instead of making noises you think will win you fake internet points, educate yourself.

I'll bite, that sounds rad

Ohio is my dealer

Well Marx already has the formulation of "capitalism creates its own gravediggers" which is his idea that the material conditions created by capitalism create individuals who are committed to overthrow it, and so the challenge historically is how to get these people all pulling the same correct direction, and once you do, how do you keep it from breaking apart or giving into reformism or whatever.

But there's something about the way it is framed? Those of us who want to see capitalism overthrown are able to read something more abstract into it, but the metaphor persists more or less intact. The brutality of it never gives way to the truth that we read into it. So in that way when we accept the truth there is violence that hitches a ride in our reasoning. How far are we then from Bordiga's formulation of "Socialism and Barbarism"? Idk. Everyone knows that quote, but people don't know about Matewan, or the American Strike waves of 1932, or Burkina Faso, or Pancho Villa.

In short, is what we are learning and repeating educational in a revolutionary way? After all, as Paulo Friere said, "When education isn't liberating it is the dream of the oppressed to become the oppressor."

That's my favorite part of the movie, Krishna is in the office about to gun down Jesus, when Buddha kicks down the door and is like "Life is suffering, prepare to live!" And then shoots all the mobsters with a drum loaded Thompson machine gun, before killing Krishna and saving Jesus. And then the sex scene is so passionate

I don't know there are these ideas get stuck in our head and we just assume they are true for some reason. This "the capitalist will sell us the rope we will use to hang him" is prolific, its everywhere and one has to wonder why. There's no truth in it. People would attribute it to Marx too but Marx would never say that. I think its a cultural relic that serves to make communism sound badass and scary. But hanging capitalists will not put the world on the path to socialism, if anything the opposite must be true.

Lenin never said it either

Kruschev didn't say that

Just have to shift from disposable mace, a spray can full of pepper spray; to a reusable mace, a long ass handle with a big fuck off spikey ball at the end

What does this mean though?