Yes, and any kind, decent, compassionate person is an anarchist bringing violence and destruction.
If it takes two days to help an enslaved person liberate themselves without harming the slave driver or one day to help them escape while harming the slave driver, any decent person would choose the latter. If it takes two days to liberate convicts from private prisons without harming the prison guards and one day to liberate them while harming the guards, any compassionate person would choose the latter.
Waiting for nonviolent, nondestructive forms of liberation is often cruel towards the victims. Violence is not necessarily the right answer, but it is often enough to earn any decent person that description.
(That is, if you include facilitating violence and destruction as “bringing” it. Not everybody needs to be on the front lines).
I’d rather get fucked than fuck someone who doesn’t deserve it. You cannot predict the consequences of violence and destruction. It’s not okay for me to choose for people to suffer because my dogma tells me it is a net gain for some other group. ymmv.
So you don’t pay taxes and you’re writing this from prison?
Because if you’re paying taxes, you are paying people to fuck people who don’t deserve it, when you could instead get fucked yourself. Your dogma may tell you that taxes are a net gain for some other group, but you say that’s not okay for you.
Do you see any reason why bringing violence and destruction through something other than a state would be unavoidably worse than doing so through a state?
Wait I’m confused, why are we not harming the slave drivers and also slaves drivers but they call it a prison now?
Like even if you think violence is inherently bad, the damage they do to a functional society deems their removal from said society as essential for the society to continue functioning, no? I could understand wanting to rehabilitate a child molestor, but should it not be possible they still need to be removed from society, correct?
I can’t grammatically parse your first sentence, so maybe this isn’t answering your question.
A child molestor doesn’t need to be removed from society, children deserve to be safe from them. Housing child molestors in a child-free commune with that commune’s consent could be all you need to do in many cases. In general, communities can voluntarily take on the collective responsibility of helping people arrange their lives so they can do as much as possible without harming others, and helping them get better at not harming others. Whether that’s “criminal” like child molestation, “psychological” like psychotic episodes, “medical” like infectious diseases, or “social” like sexism.
Society is rife with people willing to help others do as much as possible safely, from nurses to insurance agents. For the same effort it takes to imprison someone, you can do so much more that actually helps.
Waiting for nonviolent, nondestructive forms of liberation is often cruel towards the victims. Violence is not necessarily the right answer, but it is often enough to earn any decent person that description.
At the same time, violence which is poorly thought out can victimize many, many more people. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” applies to both sides of this argument. If both act in such a way as causes harm towards the oppressed, but in the hopes of alleviating it, why is one decent and one not?
People who believe only in nonviolent actions are fools who cause immense harm, and in modern bourgeois democracies, are by far the majority of fools screwing the oppressed over. But people who use violence without a serious and feasible plan for how it can actually overthrow, help overthrow, lead to overthrowing, or at least seriously hinder the oppressors are also fools who cause immense harm in the same exact way.
Choose violence, choose nonviolence, choose a mixture of both; whatever you choose, choose the most effective one you can figure.
I don’t blame people for rolling the dice and failing. But I might blame someone for playing the lottery and failing. At some point, a failure to genuinely analyze one’s actions and plans and route to success is, itself, a moral failure.
Yes, and any kind, decent, compassionate person is an anarchist bringing violence and destruction.
If it takes two days to help an enslaved person liberate themselves without harming the slave driver or one day to help them escape while harming the slave driver, any decent person would choose the latter. If it takes two days to liberate convicts from private prisons without harming the prison guards and one day to liberate them while harming the guards, any compassionate person would choose the latter.
Waiting for nonviolent, nondestructive forms of liberation is often cruel towards the victims. Violence is not necessarily the right answer, but it is often enough to earn any decent person that description.
(That is, if you include facilitating violence and destruction as “bringing” it. Not everybody needs to be on the front lines).
I’d rather get fucked than fuck someone who doesn’t deserve it. You cannot predict the consequences of violence and destruction. It’s not okay for me to choose for people to suffer because my dogma tells me it is a net gain for some other group. ymmv.
So you don’t pay taxes and you’re writing this from prison?
Because if you’re paying taxes, you are paying people to fuck people who don’t deserve it, when you could instead get fucked yourself. Your dogma may tell you that taxes are a net gain for some other group, but you say that’s not okay for you.
Do you see any reason why bringing violence and destruction through something other than a state would be unavoidably worse than doing so through a state?
Wait I’m confused, why are we not harming the slave drivers and also slaves drivers but they call it a prison now?
Like even if you think violence is inherently bad, the damage they do to a functional society deems their removal from said society as essential for the society to continue functioning, no? I could understand wanting to rehabilitate a child molestor, but should it not be possible they still need to be removed from society, correct?
I can’t grammatically parse your first sentence, so maybe this isn’t answering your question.
A child molestor doesn’t need to be removed from society, children deserve to be safe from them. Housing child molestors in a child-free commune with that commune’s consent could be all you need to do in many cases. In general, communities can voluntarily take on the collective responsibility of helping people arrange their lives so they can do as much as possible without harming others, and helping them get better at not harming others. Whether that’s “criminal” like child molestation, “psychological” like psychotic episodes, “medical” like infectious diseases, or “social” like sexism.
Society is rife with people willing to help others do as much as possible safely, from nurses to insurance agents. For the same effort it takes to imprison someone, you can do so much more that actually helps.
At the same time, violence which is poorly thought out can victimize many, many more people. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” applies to both sides of this argument. If both act in such a way as causes harm towards the oppressed, but in the hopes of alleviating it, why is one decent and one not?
People who believe only in nonviolent actions are fools who cause immense harm, and in modern bourgeois democracies, are by far the majority of fools screwing the oppressed over. But people who use violence without a serious and feasible plan for how it can actually overthrow, help overthrow, lead to overthrowing, or at least seriously hinder the oppressors are also fools who cause immense harm in the same exact way.
Choose violence, choose nonviolence, choose a mixture of both; whatever you choose, choose the most effective one you can figure.
I don’t blame people for rolling the dice and failing. But I might blame someone for playing the lottery and failing. At some point, a failure to genuinely analyze one’s actions and plans and route to success is, itself, a moral failure.
I agree, thanks for clarifying. The "if"s in my comment are load-bearing.