On Violence

[John 6IX Breezy]

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.

[Rev. Rye]

Progress can't follow from violence? So, I take it we're not familiar with the American Civil War and how it led to the abolition of slavery?

[The Architect Of Fate]

The Civil Rights Movement

[John 6IX Breezy]

Progress can't follow from violence? So, I take it we're not familiar with the American Civil War and how it led to the abolition of slavery?

The Civil War is perhaps the best example of why progress does not follow from violence. 

Consider the fact that slavery had already been abolished by peaceful means in many other nations. This demonstrates that violence was not a necessary (though certainly justified) condition for abolition. Perhaps more persuasive is the fact that almost no other nation has struggled with the aftermath of abolition more than America. The Civil War paved the way for Southern racism—the lynchings, the inequality, and the discrimination that exists to this day. This seems to me a direct consequence of the violence by which abolition was achieved. Another example is Haiti—no other island in the Carribean has existed with as much stigma and deprivation as Haiti. And this is true despite abolition being universally achieved across the Carribean, though none as violent as Haiti's.

And so, my point stands: Wherever there is a nonviolent alternative, it will outperform the violent one.

[John 6IX Breezy]

The Civil Rights Movement

The Civil Rights Movement stands as the greatest example of what can be achieved with nonviolence. 

From gay rights to women's rights, every inch of progress gained was achieved primarily through protests and legislative means. I don't recall politicians being assassinated to achieve abortion rights, nor executives being held ransom for marriage equality. To the contrary, whenever violence did emerge it always became a hindrance to progress. The Black Panthers caused authorities to increase surveillance and crackdown, it made hate groups all the more militant, and it caused negative legislation to be passed such as the Mulford Act banning open carry in California. 

Hence my point: Violence only gives the illusion of change but never the actual progress.

[Angrboda]

Here's an interesting thought to play with. Social consent can only occur because of the sanctioned violence of the police state.

[The Architect Of Fate]

The Civil Rights Movement

The Civil Rights Movement stands as the greatest example of what can be achieved with nonviolence. 

From gay rights to women's rights, every inch of progress gained was achieved primarily through protests and legislative means. I don't recall politicians being assassinated to achieve abortion rights, nor executives being held ransom for marriage equality. To the contrary, whenever violence did emerge it always became a hindrance to progress. The Black Panthers caused authorities to increase surveillance and crackdown, it made hate groups all the more militant, and it caused negative legislation to be passed such as the Mulford Act banning open carry in California. 

Hence my point: Violence only gives the illusion of change but never the actual progress.

There was plenty of violence during the civil rights movement . The original feminists were quite violent. Gay rights every hear of Stonewall?

Also the black panthers didn't cause the crackdown that was already going to happen so this notion violence was a hindrance is simply A-historical

[The Architect Of Fate]

The Civil War is perhaps the best example of why progress does not follow from violence. 

Consider the fact that slavery had already been abolished by peaceful means in many other nations. This demonstrates that violence was not a necessary (though certainly justified) condition for abolition. Perhaps more persuasive is the fact that almost no other nation has struggled with the aftermath of abolition more than America. The Civil War paved the way for Southern racism—the lynchings, the inequality, and the discrimination that exists to this day. This seems to me a direct consequence of the violence by which abolition was achieved. Another example is Haiti—no other island in the Carribean has existed with as much stigma and deprivation as Haiti. And this is true despite abolition being universally achieved across the Carribean, though none as violent as Haiti's.

And so, my point stands: Wherever there is a nonviolent alternative, it will outperform the violent one.

Pretty not being slaves was progress so your points falls hard

[The Grand Nudger]

Here's an interesting thought to play with.  Social consent can only occur because of the sanctioned violence of the police state.

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?

[Silver]

Dependent on the situation, my perspective will be different.