(October 7, 2021 at 5:59 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Isn't violence disobedience to an entity that claims a monopoly on violence?
That's the reason the state claims it, after all, and indoctrinates us to that effect. They'd rather not get dead-ed. Not just their power, but their existence too, amounting to nothing. I want to say that sure, oppressors can handle violence, and anything else too - but violence stresses their control. It interrupts the delivery of goods and services to state sympathizers, it provides the state with an oppurtunity to alienate itself from support.
-and they do, like clockwork.
To an oppressor, every single member of your society is a potential traitor. A potential assassin - and they're right. My fun way to put my opinion on this is that shitty people should never be allowed to believe that they're the most dangerous ones in the room.
Violence works. I'm not disputing that. But disobedience works too. And disobedience might even work better.
Especially against something insidious like capitalism. Capitalism is like that friend that does nice things for you but also uses you. There are numerous ways to deal with such a "friend." Decking him in the face might work. But my method has always been to make myself unavailable to be used. To not participate in the friendship. And what good is decking him going to do without the underlying "I'm not going to participate in a relationship that uses me" factor. Disobedience is fundamental to change.
You made the point that violence is a kind of disobedience. Maybe that's the one and only feature that makes violence work in the first place. That it's strong and palpable disobedience. Strong and palpable disobedience is what I'm arguing for. I'm just not convinced it needs to be violent.
