- cross-posted to:
- lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
The things the state does and says don’t define us. Choosing your values based on what the state does and says is stupid. I want to be a kind, decent, compassionate person and whatever people or states says about me doesn’t influence that one bit.
That! The State may demonize us, but that’s no reason to actually become demons.
Using violence against oppressors is not becoming a demon mind you.
You’re right, but the State accuses us of more than that.
Yes, and any kind, decent, compassionate person is an anarchist bringing violence and destruction.
If it takes two days to help an enslaved person liberate themselves without harming the slave driver or one day to help them escape while harming the slave driver, any decent person would choose the latter. If it takes two days to liberate convicts from private prisons without harming the prison guards and one day to liberate them while harming the guards, any compassionate person would choose the latter.
Waiting for nonviolent, nondestructive forms of liberation is often cruel towards the victims. Violence is not necessarily the right answer, but it is often enough to earn any decent person that description.
(That is, if you include facilitating violence and destruction as “bringing” it. Not everybody needs to be on the front lines).
Wait I’m confused, why are we not harming the slave drivers and also slaves drivers but they call it a prison now?
Like even if you think violence is inherently bad, the damage they do to a functional society deems their removal from said society as essential for the society to continue functioning, no? I could understand wanting to rehabilitate a child molestor, but should it not be possible they still need to be removed from society, correct?
Waiting for nonviolent, nondestructive forms of liberation is often cruel towards the victims. Violence is not necessarily the right answer, but it is often enough to earn any decent person that description.
At the same time, violence which is poorly thought out can victimize many, many more people. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” applies to both sides of this argument. If both act in such a way as causes harm towards the oppressed, but in the hopes of alleviating it, why is one decent and one not?
People who believe only in nonviolent actions are fools who cause immense harm, and in modern bourgeois democracies, are by far the majority of fools screwing the oppressed over. But people who use violence without a serious and feasible plan for how it can actually overthrow, help overthrow, lead to overthrowing, or at least seriously hinder the oppressors are also fools who cause immense harm in the same exact way.
Choose violence, choose nonviolence, choose a mixture of both; whatever you choose, choose the most effective one you can figure.
I don’t blame people for rolling the dice and failing. But I might blame someone for playing the lottery and failing. At some point, a failure to genuinely analyze one’s actions and plans and route to success is, itself, a moral failure.
I agree, thanks for clarifying. The "if"s in my comment are load-bearing.
There’s a balance. PR is important, but I definitely agree that shrinking back from action because of the potential of state propaganda demonizing it is a weak response.
Just keep your finger on the pulse of the actual opinion of the masses.
