Ask Lemmy

The biggest advocates for non-violence are white cis heterosexual men. It is the failure to recognize the multifaceted nature of violence itself. Punching a Nazi can mean that other Nazis stop looking up to them, and they stop being able to effectively organize.

You should be selective and strategic with who you punch. Typically you will want to go for leadership, or the guy who offers a connection between two groups that you consider a risk.

That being said, you should also consider that you probably aren't going to have as much success punching a Nazi on their terms. A lot of them are into their gym and guns so it tends to be to your advantage to catch them alone when you are in a group. Sometimes the opportunity will come after one of their demonstrations when they are walking to their car. Other times, it can be useful to find where they live and work.

Punching Nazis isn't an everyday thing but its unrealistic to claim it isn't sometimes necessary. It works very effectively as part of a bigger picture. Alongside it, you can put stickers on their doors in the middle of the night. If the circumstances arise, you can do silly stuff like convincing one that another fascist is sleeping with his equally shitty wife.

don't use violence, if you value your life. violence is for idiots.

there's the tolerance paradox: you should use the least amount of violence that keeps society (and your own life) stable.

The main argument is that the means dictates the ends, so if we want a non violent (and non opressing) society, punching people won’t help.

And this failed logic is exactly why we are where we at right now, on the brink of the Fourth Reich rising across the US and Europe.

Because tolerant people have forgotten the most important thing about a tolerant society.

That it must be rigorously and viciously defended from those who seek to exploit the social contract to elevate their attacks on it, and it requires far more than words and wind to achieve that... again, as evidence of where we are now as a society. Because their ultimate goal is to undo the society we love, and replace it with oppression, fear, and hatred.

I've never punched anyone and I don't plan to start.

Violence must be organized and accountable to be just. Non-violence is always preferred, and is always the initial approach.

But if there is a credible threat, defensive violence is OK as long as whoever is being violent accepts whatever accountability may come.

I'm conflicted about it, but the fact is one reason the US has been so successful in leading the world in relative peace (as compared to WWII and before, not compared to the ideal) is because we have so much capacity for violence in our back pocket.

"Talk softly and carry a big stick."

Non violence has never worked imo. At most it's a temporary solution, but even peaceful movements like MLK's needs a Malcolm x and black Panthers to show what will happen if you ignore the peaceful ones

Violence and nonviolence, in the face of violent, intolerant ideologies such as Nazism, or even colonoalism, is not as clear cut as it gets made out to be. I think primary arguments for violence are often misunderstood and taken out of context.

I don't think it's a moral question, as moral reasoning seems to lead to either 1. Violence is always wrong or 2. Violence is a moral imperative against certain enemies, for to do nothing is to permit and assent to the violence that they inflict. Neither of these absolutes are adequate within actual consequences, although both views definitely have to their credit historical circumstances where these strategies were arguably successful and progressive.

However i think there are important lessons on violence and nonviolence that can be learned from various historic examples:

1. Individual violence against individuals does not advance progressive goals. Individual violence merely strengthens the status quo against that violence, and can be used to justify mass violence of the state or militias against masses of people, usually a targeted minority.

2. Nonviolence tactics can be effective against state or military repression, but state and military roles in genocidal campaigns, or participation in extrajudicial violence shows that otherizing is effective at dehumanizing, and in order to be effective must consciously and effectively humanize the nonviolent activists to the oppressing forces in order to introduce contradictions into their justifications and create splits within the ruling classes of the oppressing powers. This is a long term strategy so you have to make sure that whoever you are nonviolent resisting isn't gonna just kill everyone, which they will try to do, even if it is against their interests to do so.

3. Violence may be immediately necessary to protect human life, in the short term or in the long term. The fact is violent repression creates the conditions for violent resistance escalation of violence sharpens the contradictions already present in the status quo and creates splits among the various classes in an oppressor/oppressed dialectic. In this way violent resistance can galvanize both violent and nonviolent forms of resistance for your side, but it also does so for the other side. Therefore violence should be avoided if possible, but if violence is perceived as defensive or necessary it can have progressive or even revolutionary consequences on consciousness and material conditions.

So the conditions that introduce struggle and violence are social contradictions, not necessarily a conscious choice by individuals intending to do violence, although sometimes it is.

So for my part, as an American with that perspective, I've become fond of the concept of "armed nonviolent defense." An example of this is the Deacons of Defense and Justice that proliferated in the south during desegregation. Groups of black men took up arms to defend their communities from Klan violence, and provided security for MLK, CORE; as well as forcing the Klan underground in the south for a generation or two. So organized citizens defending their communities and working together with political groups and revolutionaries to defend against violent reaction without the progressive political movement taking it upon itself to be a violent one.

This is an immense and complex topic and the rightness or wrongness of it is contingent on the historical conditions that are present. So understanding "correct" usages of violence and non violence doesn't extend from our moral obligations, but our obligations to the real world, each other and the future of our movements.

Not very many I bet since everyone is an internet tough guy, I never actually fought in my life.