On Violence

[Belacqua]

Unfortunately this leaves human beings with an unsolvable paradox, in that it is natural for us to have virtually unlimited desires, yet also natural for us to hope for a peaceful and secure society which demands the suppression of many desires.

Certainly, as Freud has said, "It is impossible to overlook the extent to which civilization is built upon a renunciation of instinct."

And this is why I've called violence a non-strategy. Because it is in many ways rock bottom, the default mode in nature, and the first thing a child learns they possess. Violence is only a strategy to the extent that anything one does, or doesn't do, can be considered strategy, which doesn't say much. Even in war, few would consider all out violence to be strategic. Rather, strategy is born when you begin to be selective and precise in battle, placing restraints and conditions on violence. Strategy is knowing when and where NOT to be violent.

Well spotted! 

I was actually thinking of Freud when I wrote this. But some people here hate it if I attribute ideas to the really smart people. 

I think the instinct toward violence also helps explain why so many people are eager to justify it, and to say that it is a workable strategy. "Good violence," of course, being whatever supports the goals that I approve of. 

There's also the issue of short-term vs. long-term benefit. What seems to be a success in the immediate aftermath of violence is often erased by the longer-term effects. So for example, shortly after 9-11 George Bush gave Osama bin Ladin everything he wanted -- US bases out of Saudi Arabia, and the whole Arab world angry about US military aggression. The Bin Ladin Construction Company even turned a profit for the first time in years. But of course in the longer term it gave the US license to wreak havoc, with terrible results. Millions of lives ruined in Iraq for no reason. The Taliban in complete control of Afghanistan. Bin Ladin's strategy failed, and so did America's afterward -- unless America's real strategy was just to spread chaos and suffering. 

All of which makes me think that we can take a step back and think about what goal people were REALLY pursuing, vs. the goals they stated on the news. Halliburton made a fortune, which is what Cheney was after all along. In Ukraine, Larry Fink's shareholders have cleaned up, while guaranteeing hardship for Ukrainians. It may be that violence IS a successful strategy for people who are happy to harm others to get money. And for them this is success, while for anyone with a sense of morality it is just evil.