On Violence

[John 6IX Breezy]

That is a fun one.  Perhaps a society will not reach or be stable at a form of loose consent unless it feels that it can enforce it's will, violently if necessary - so that the capacity for organized violence is in itself a central component of cohesion.  Similar to our tendency to foster and then export our violence to the periphery and hinterlands as a component of "civilizing" both the edge and the center?

In my view, this question requires a more nuanced discussion of what violence is. Because I agree that when a third-party "Leviathan" introduces a cost for aggression, there is a motivation to choose cooperation. It pacifies society. 

But I don't think violence is the best way to describe what is happening. because we still want to distinguish when that force is being applied rightly or wrongly, with wrongly being closer to my meaning of violence. For example, if the government oppresses everybody to stay in power instead of just the transgressors, I would call that violence. Or if the government punishes transgressors in a way that is more excessive that what is justified, that too is violent. But an impartial, appropriate, and just use of force deserves a different label.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think we can make those distinctions between violence we feel is justified and violence we feel is not without contending that the violence we believe to be justified is therefore nonviolent or not violence. Personally, I'd breeze past all the things we think are justifiable violence and go straight for the jugular. To things that we know aren't...but may nevertheless be crucial to community building in ways that we're not comfortable openly expressing.

For example, the sort of consent a small unit has in being told to kill is derived in no small part from the assumption that everyone else there, no matter whether they believe it to be justifiable in some moral sense (or any novel sense), will follow the order too - and more obliquely but no less important, that the order is coming from our society. In your regular life you probably wouldn't be able to sleep a wink worrying you may be surrounded by killers but in that context you can't sleep unless you know you are. I wonder if society has some sort of dynamic like that - just a larger version of what plays out in small groups. That, at the bottom of it all, we know the difference between Us and Them by who is willing (or who we believe to be willing) to stand on this side of that line with Us even when what we intend to do to Them is bad™. That our social consent is in some way contingent on society being violently on our side even if or when we are in the wrong or withheld in our unwillingness to believe a society incapable of violence, or merely hesitant of the same, is a legitimate one.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hello, I hope everyone is doing well—it's been a while. Here are a few disorganized thoughts I've had this week, based on current healthcare events:

1. Violence is an impoverished conception of power. That's because true power can only come from social consent, and to achieve consent you must communicate, negotiate, and persuade others—not coerce them. Violence is thus the absence of strategy; and without strategy you will always have the illusion of change but never the certainty of progress.

2. As such, violence and progress do not, and cannot, coexist. They are inverse measures of each other, such that you can predict the state of one by observing the state of the other. Nor can progress rationally precipitate from violence, because you cannot lend yourself to wrong you condemn and hope to move beyond the place where you started.

3. Finally, my conclusion is that no matter how justified violence may be in a given situation, IF a nonviolent alterative exists the nonviolent one will always outperform the violent one.

Violence is recourse when words fail. Given that it too is a form of communication, and ideally the last recourse, violence is what happens when talking fails.

I think you may be right -- violence may be an absence of strategy. The other thing is that violence, of the threat of it, may in itself be a strategy. I know plenty of street guys who will make its threat part of their being able to walk away; I've traded shots with them myself. They use the threat of violence as a means of coercion, if it can work. They might get busted chops or jail terms when they don't adjudge the situation accordingly.

There are some situations when there is a nonviolent alternative exists, but it will not out perform a violent response anyway. When you are being attacked, for instance.

We'd most of us like to talk things out, but there are some people who just ain't being talked out of their rage. Guy who bit off half my ear, for example. I don't regret a single punch, and I'm glad his left eye was about half out of its socket. Not because I wanted to hurt him, but because without hurting him I might not be here to write this post. He wanted to kill me and the only thing that stopped him was my violence.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Hello, I hope everyone is doing well—it's been a while. Here are a few disorganized thoughts I've had this week, based on current healthcare events:

Doing grand, thank you.

1. Violence is an impoverished conception of power. That's because true power can only come from social consent, and to achieve consent you must communicate, negotiate, and persuade others—not coerce them. Violence is thus the absence of strategy; and without strategy you will always have the illusion of change but never the certainty of progress.

This is utter nonsense and shows an ignorance of the historical record. Violence, properly executed and controlled, is a phenomenally effective means of achieving power, and there's nothing 'impoverished' about it.' The claim that true power can only come from social consent is likewise misinformed - why is power so derived more true than power achieved via violent methods?

2. As such, violence and progress do not, and cannot, coexist. They are inverse measures of each other, such that you can predict the state of one by observing the state of the other. Nor can progress rationally precipitate from violence, because you cannot lend yourself to wrong you condemn and hope to move beyond the place where you started.

That's a charming notion, but clearly a made-up one. How can you explain the observed fact of violently repressive societies than nevertheless made tremendous progress (the United States, for example)?

3. Finally, my conclusion is that no matter how justified violence may be in a given situation, IF a nonviolent alterative exists the nonviolent one will always outperform the violent one.

Like Chamberlain's bit of paper stopped Hitler, right?

Boru

[Sheldon]

Hello, I hope everyone is doing well—it's been a while. Here are a few disorganized thoughts I've had this week, based on current healthcare events:

1. Violence is an impoverished conception of power. That's because true power can only come from social consent, and to achieve consent you must communicate, negotiate, and persuade others—not coerce them. Violence is thus the absence of strategy; and without strategy you will always have the illusion of change but never the certainty of progress.

2. As such, violence and progress do not, and cannot, coexist. They are inverse measures of each other, such that you can predict the state of one by observing the state of the other. Nor can progress rationally precipitate from violence, because you cannot lend yourself to wrong you condemn and hope to move beyond the place where you started.

3. Finally, my conclusion is that no matter how justified violence may be in a given situation, IF a nonviolent alterative exists the nonviolent one will always outperform the violent one.

It's more likely that violence is simply another strategy, that some people are content to use, or as Clausewitz put it "War is a continuation of politics by other means" Violence has also rid the world of the Nazis and the Fascist militarists in Japan, so I whilst it requires enormous suffering, one cannot argue that it does not work, though subjective moral arguments can be offered as to when and how much violence is justified. 

I don't see point two sorry, is there any indication humans are moving away from violence as a means to achieve what they want? If so I must have missed this, just watch the news for a few days. 

As to point 3, a non-violent alternative will only exist when all parties in a conflict are not prepared to use violence,  once that changes the your choices are to acquiesce to the demands of the party prepared to use violence, or to try and match or exceed that violence. We already know from history that with some people and ideologies a peaceful resolution simply isn't possible.

[Sheldon]

Hello, I hope everyone is doing well—it's been a while. Here are a few disorganized thoughts I've had this week, based on current healthcare events:

Doing grand, thank you.

1. Violence is an impoverished conception of power. That's because true power can only come from social consent, and to achieve consent you must communicate, negotiate, and persuade others—not coerce them. Violence is thus the absence of strategy; and without strategy you will always have the illusion of change but never the certainty of progress.

This is utter nonsense and shows an ignorance of the historical record. Violence, properly executed and controlled, is a phenomenally effective means of achieving power, and there's nothing 'impoverished' about it.' The claim that true power can only come from social consent is likewise misinformed - why is power so derived more true than power achieved via violent methods?

2. As such, violence and progress do not, and cannot, coexist. They are inverse measures of each other, such that you can predict the state of one by observing the state of the other. Nor can progress rationally precipitate from violence, because you cannot lend yourself to wrong you condemn and hope to move beyond the place where you started.

That's a charming notion, but clearly a made-up one. How can you explain the observed fact of violently repressive societies than nevertheless made tremendous progress (the United States, for example)?

3. Finally, my conclusion is that no matter how justified violence may be in a given situation, IF a nonviolent alterative exists the nonviolent one will always outperform the violent one.

Like Chamberlain's bit of paper stopped Hitler, right?

Boru

Damn it, I should have read that first...

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Doing grand, thank you.


This is utter nonsense and shows an ignorance of the historical record. Violence, properly executed and controlled, is a phenomenally effective means of achieving power, and there's nothing 'impoverished' about it.' The claim that true power can only come from social consent is likewise misinformed - why is power so derived more true than power achieved via violent methods?


That's a charming notion, but clearly a made-up one. How can you explain the observed fact of violently repressive societies than nevertheless made tremendous progress (the United States, for example)?


Like Chamberlain's bit of paper stopped Hitler, right?

Boru

Damn it, I should have read that first...

On a much smaller scale than WWII, a prolonged campaign of violence in the country of my birth has led to peace (more or less). It was violence, not wishful thinking, that brought the parties to the negotiating table.

Boru

[Belacqua]

Hello, I hope everyone is doing well—it's been a while. Here are a few disorganized thoughts I've had this week, based on current healthcare events:

1. Violence is an impoverished conception of power. That's because true power can only come from social consent, and to achieve consent you must communicate, negotiate, and persuade others—not coerce them. Violence is thus the absence of strategy; and without strategy you will always have the illusion of change but never the certainty of progress.

2. As such, violence and progress do not, and cannot, coexist. They are inverse measures of each other, such that you can predict the state of one by observing the state of the other. Nor can progress rationally precipitate from violence, because you cannot lend yourself to wrong you condemn and hope to move beyond the place where you started.

3. Finally, my conclusion is that no matter how justified violence may be in a given situation, IF a nonviolent alterative exists the nonviolent one will always outperform the violent one.

Hey, it's been a while! I hope life is treating you well.

In one of Zizek's books he talks about violence that's "below the line" and violence that's "above the line." 

"Above the line" just means that it makes the news, or people are aware of it and shake their heads about how it's something bad. "Below the line" is more like structural violence -- the stuff that our society needs to keep running, so we all just sort of ignore it. If we're aware of it at all. 

The below the line stuff might vary somewhat according to how we define violence. For example, the fact that to have our battery-powered devices there have to be lots and lots of people working in slave-like conditions in Africa seems like structural violence to me. The fact that the people of Iraq can never benefit from their country's natural resources because the US still steals all the profits. Not to mention for-profit jails where investors make more money if more people are incarcerated. 

And I'm not vegan or anything, but violence against animals is still violence. 

So your statement "violence and progress do not, and cannot, coexist" will seem silly to people who have no trouble ignoring or justifying the below-the-line violence. But for people who are aware of it and hate it, it means that what we see as progress is in fact not. Progress gained through oppression is not progressing anywhere, except toward greater inequality and injustice. 

A society that needs such structural violence to maintain the comfort of the more fortunate will seem like an advanced society to those who are comfortable. But seen from an objective distance, it is not a successful culture. 

The very least we could do is to be conscious of the structural violence and work towards its alleviation. But we just had a big-time political campaign, and neither side thought it worthwhile to bring up the problem. Though if one side had, I might have actually been moved to vote for somebody.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Hello, I hope everyone is doing well—it's been a while. Here are a few disorganized thoughts I've had this week, based on current healthcare events:

1. Violence is an impoverished conception of power. That's because true power can only come from social consent, and to achieve consent you must communicate, negotiate, and persuade others—not coerce them. Violence is thus the absence of strategy; and without strategy you will always have the illusion of change but never the certainty of progress.

2. As such, violence and progress do not, and cannot, coexist. They are inverse measures of each other, such that you can predict the state of one by observing the state of the other. Nor can progress rationally precipitate from violence, because you cannot lend yourself to wrong you condemn and hope to move beyond the place where you started.

3. Finally, my conclusion is that no matter how justified violence may be in a given situation, IF a nonviolent alterative exists the nonviolent one will always outperform the violent one.

Hey, it's been a while! I hope life is treating you well.

In one of Zizek's books he talks about violence that's "below the line" and violence that's "above the line." 

"Above the line" just means that it makes the news, or people are aware of it and shake their heads about how it's something bad. "Below the line" is more like structural violence -- the stuff that our society needs to keep running, so we all just sort of ignore it. If we're aware of it at all. 

The below the line stuff might vary somewhat according to how we define violence. For example, the fact that to have our battery-powered devices there have to be lots and lots of people working in slave-like conditions in Africa seems like structural violence to me. The fact that the people of Iraq can never benefit from their country's natural resources because the US still steals all the profits. Not to mention for-profit jails where investors make more money if more people are incarcerated. 

And I'm not vegan or anything, but violence against animals is still violence. 

So your statement "violence and progress do not, and cannot, coexist" will seem silly to people who have no trouble ignoring or justifying the below-the-line violence. But for people who are aware of it and hate it, it means that what we see as progress is in fact not. Progress gained through oppression is not progressing anywhere, except toward greater inequality and injustice. 

A society that needs such structural violence to maintain the comfort of the more fortunate will seem like an advanced society to those who are comfortable. But seen from an objective distance, it is not a successful culture. 

The very least we could do is to be conscious of the structural violence and work towards its alleviation. But we just had a big-time political campaign, and neither side thought it worthwhile to bring up the problem. Though if one side had, I might have actually been moved to vote for somebody.

John Gray described Zizek’s work, in toto, as ‘entertaining, but intellectually worthless.’ I don’t need to justify Gray’s views - just quoting a well-known philosopher is sufficient.

Sound familiar?

Boru

[Tonus]

2. As such, violence and progress do not, and cannot, coexist.

I think that as societies become more organized and civilized, the effectiveness of violence wanes to the point where it can indeed become detrimental. But until we get to that point, violence remains an effective means of attaining progress. The history of humanity seems to be an ongoing demonstration of our attempts to figure out where that line is.