this post was submitted on 05 May 2026
42 points (97.7% liked)

Anarchism

3012 readers
163 users here now

Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.


Other anarchist comms


Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I am refering to the old school non-violence by the way, not the modern non-resistance crap. What are your toughts?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cynar@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Violence, for a political aim should be cold and calculated, not emotional. It should also play second fiddle to non violence and communication.

The Irish troubles are a good example. The IRA forced the British government to listen to the politicians. The non violent protests and marches gave popular backing to the political process.

In a sane world, politicians know that violence is an option, and pay heed to the non violent methods before it escalates. This is what has happened in a number of non violent political movements. The option of escalation cannot be taken off the table however. It provides the silent bite to back up the bark.

The biggest thing to avoid is emotional violence. Smashing up shops in a riot might feel good but achieves very little. It burns the good will of the public. Instead it needs to be focused on a target, with minimal collateral damage. Particularly collateral deaths/injuries to the general public.

Ironically, the recent burning of a warehouse is a good example. Little to no collateral damage, but significant damage to its target, with a strong, stated reason.

One thing to note. Disparaging non violent protests is a definite bad move. Those protests provide both cover to organise, and a weathervane on public feeling.

[–] whalebiologist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

When it comes to political action my American public school system education always held up these examples against each-other as if to say: "Here are two different ways people responded to the civil rights movement: Pacifist heroes like Rosa Parks compared to domestic terrorist Black Panthers." Their message was always that it is morally correct to respond to injustice with passivity.

This half-truth is so sinister that it leads us down this road of not even considering violence as an option at all and just throwing our hands up and wondering why everything is getting worse despite how hard we post on the internet about it. It took me a while to de-program myself, but once you see the actions and the protests as a necessary dichotomy a lot of things seem possible.

[–] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago

Colonists used to teach their victims to "turn the other cheek" in the face of injustice.