In a thread, a few days ago, perhaps a week or two in fact, there was a discussion about helping people in natural disasters, and when I said I wouldn't help someone with a swastika, flying a confederate flag, people surprisingly called me out on that, saying they became socialists to help people, and not to cause more misery and so on. The main argument was potentially turning an enemy into a friend, but there obviously was the "moral" argument of helping your neighbour. I didn't think much of it, and went on with my life.
However, a few days later, I listened to "It could happen here", and posted about it. The podcast is basically a frightening thought experiment about the eventuality of a second american civil war, and it made me doubt a few things I took for granted. It also makes me realize I'm not even able to feel as a morally decent person anymore. I keep de-humanizing people, be it billionaires, nazis, landlords or even libs, I have grown bitter, angry and jaded towards normies, I genuinely despise a good chunk of them, and a part of me would absolutely love to see them get what they deserve.
And I hate it. I have the feeling to be wrong, that it is wrong to want people to be hanged or to get the wall, but it has almost become a reflex at this point. To make things even more complicated, the podcast reminded me of something : I could've been one of these guys. I could've become a fascist, had things gone horribly wrong, which almost did happen. It reminds me that these guys are humans, just like me. Flawed, stupid, credulous, miserable but still human. So here's the fucking question : am I wrong for thinking violence is the only solution to save ourselves from the coming horror ? What do these people deserve should we come out on top ? Am I a horrible person for hating libs and normies with my guts, even more than I hate reactionaries ?
And yes, I know I'm a fucking edgelord, but I'm honest with it; and I genuinely wish to hear your thoughts on this, because I am sure as hell that I'm not the only one having doubts on the question of mercy.
Violence is a matter of survival, not aesthetic.
If you have a person with a swastika flag after a disaster, he’s waving it for a reason, not because he likes the aesthetic. He’ll be out there, with his fashy friends, like they did post-Katrina, shooting minorities. Giving him supplies means directly supplying that group.
Liberals tend to see violence as an aesthetic choice. It’s ugly, and should be avoided on moral grounds. This completely ignores that the choice isn’t between violence and non-violence, but between survival and not-survival.
Now, helping people out is a different question. If you can forge ties with people who aren’t vehemently opposed to everything you stand for, then that’s outstanding. If you think you can change people who are, that’s even better. It’s strategically sensible, and it’s generally good.
Note too, that violence as an ends in itself is fashy. There’s no need to resort to violence if you can persuade people in other ways.
Yeah on your last point, violence should never be a means to satisfy justice on its own, it just has no material gain in itself. I'm certain it has happened in the past, but it's not something to cheer for. I think Chapos constant ironyposting kinda muddies this sometimes.
Normalising violence by joking about it and the like is helpful to a point—a revolution isn’t a dinner party, and neither is trying to survive a fascist surge. The sooner people get comfortable with those ideas, the better.
That said, there’s a big difference between joking about stochastic terrorism and joking about organised violence. The former is something we can carry out imminently and on our own, which makes it a hot potato for dangerous radicalisation.
The latter, on the other hand, is only really able to be done as a collective action, at which point these more serious discussions kick in. That makes it a lot ‘safer’ to have those jokes stick around.
This is it, I think. This is ball game. The whole enchilada. You can talk about competing intellectual frameworks and and materialism vs idealism and false consciousness until the cows come home, but as soon as you've developed a rationale for the denial of human dignity to anyone that can and will be weaponized do massive amounts of harm to innocents, even if you're not intending to. It's the proverbial kid who's found his dad's gun.
So in my mind, if you're not placing universal human dignity as a bedrock foundational assumption, you're not entirely on the right side.
I think a lot of this issues around this stem from viewing ourselves as pieces moving around as part of some massive narrative, the class struggle even, where anything can be justified if it moves us closer to some end. The problem with that though is, you're never in the players position to judge. You've got to live your life from your own perspective and with your own decisions.
So my approach to this might not move us closer to some grand political goal. It might even move us further away. I can't tell, thats a judgment rendered outside of my scope. I can only operate within my scope, and the battle I can fight in there is to fight against that tendency toward dehumanizing and loss of empathy and to do whatever I can to beat back the claws of the cold.
The ends justify the means in a purely abstract utilitarian sense, but we've all seen enough use of this logic twisted to horrible results that we need to start asking - is there something inherently broken about how humans weigh ends vs means? It looks pretty consistent that we'll justify more harm against our enemies and more reasons for us to personally take power than actually suit our goals. So these are things we need to watch out for, even when we feel like we're in the right.
I personally find it easiest to view violence, even against enemies, as a failing. Mistakes are inevitable, and sometimes you already failed before you had a chance to ask the question. But this semi-pacifist framing at least puts some of the weight back on the decision that seems to go missing once our brains identify someone as an enemy.
Anyway come on down to reddit.com/r/tweeleft and get your shipment of jam.
So here’s the fucking question : am I wrong for thinking violence is the only solution to save ourselves from the coming horror ?
Do you support violence based on your personal feelings, or because there is a real reason to?
Violence is one tool among many. It may be necessary in some cases, but there must be some kind of ethical framework to determine that. Otherwise, you’re a potential criminal and might end up becoming a threat to those who you currently side with.
If you are ok with hurting people based solely on personal feelings, how can anyone else really feel safe around you given that something someone does will eventually make you upset?
Also, if you want to do violence based on your feelings, then what makes you think violence will help you feel any better anyways, or do anything to solve your personal issues?
but there must be some kind of ethical framework to determine that. Otherwise, you’re a potential criminal and might end up becoming a threat to those who you currently side with.
Sankara?
Not an exact quote, but maybe I was remembering Sankara on that one
Just wanted to say you're totally right in not going out of your way to help chuds/Nazis/etc. and wasting resources/time that could go to non-terrible people.
Fuck em' and leave their sorry asses out to dry.
I've always kept in my mind that a disenfranchised ex-billionaire is utterly powerless and not a threat. So if they could be led out of their evil lair and into a 1 bedroom on the outskirts of the city peacefully, then who needs their head rolling?
No, they are a threat. Until you've won everywhere you need their head to roll
Maybe it would be more tactically sound to turn them into vegetables or zombies instead, if possible, as it could complicate the transfer of their wealth to some designated heir.
Lobotomies wouldn’t be as aesthetically pleasing as guillotines, but could potentially be more useful.
EDIT: Please don’t take this comment too seriously, folks.
Weird, maybe, but not all that complicated. Ever seen any of those creepy old lobotomy videos? All you really need is something like an ice pick or screw driver. You could do them pretty quickly and easily if you wanted to.
I meant keeping them around at all after the half Trotsky you give them
We must be ruthless in the fight. But all these people who fight us, they're broken.
Some of that is their own shit choice, and they're gonna need to own it, but that choice was always constrained.
Which is to say, Unbending Justice in the struggle, Infinite Mercy in victory.
I have a profound distrust of any argument that boils down to "the ends justify the means." There's no way to be sure of what the ends actually will be--the law of unintended consequences will bite you in the ass every time. So then you're left with the terrible thing you've done (while justifying it to yourself because your intentions are pure) but the terrible action you've taken has caused horrible consequences you couldn't have predicted.
In other words, I'm pro mercy. But I'm also a Mennonite, so I don't expect everybody here to agree with me on that.
In the case of armed conflict, fascists will not only kill you, but they will kill your whole family. Read the history of partisan resistance in Europe. If one fascist was killed they'd publicly execute 10 innocent people in reprisals. Violence might make you uncomfy, but personally, if it means stopping genocide and mass slaughter of innocents, I'd burn every fascist alive if I had to.
I'm at the point where I think it's probably unhealthy to revel in violence and I think we should be merciful and kind when possible, but you also have to realize like...there is going to be violence and chaos and even mistakes. So I don't necessarily think it's counter-revolutionary to caution against excess violence as long as if some happens you don't have a reactionary response and then side against said revolution because of it. idk if that makes sense.
I have been struggling with thoughts like these, especially when people here call for violence or celebrate someone getting what they had coming for them. It is super easy to slip into thinking whatever happens is justice, and to justify all kinds of horrible things in the name of the greater good, or because the people you hurt are this or that. This has already happened in history more times than you could count. Very often done by people, who think they are doing a good thing, or fighting for a good cause. Left-wing partisan death squads have existed, and people driven by left wing ideas are responsible for some horrible atrocities, and that is not always driven by someone coopting the movement for his own power trip. We like to take the moral high ground over chuds, and there is a good reason for it, but it is just as easy for people to act in exactly the same way, with the same lack of compassion, empathy and humanity. Just your explanations change. And "they would do the same to me or you" is not an explanation or an excuse.
am I wrong for thinking violence is the only solution to save ourselves from the coming horror ?
Probably not. I think the situation is heading in that direction more and more. But being violent in self-defense, or in defense of your community, and executing peolpe becasue they might be X or Y is a completely different thing. So, there needs to be a balance, control.
What do these people deserve should we come out on top ?
Which ones? Most people, the vast majority of them, just want to live their lives and live their lives. They abhor violence, and they refuse to believe the situation is as bad as it is, because they live in their own bubbles. And people can convince themselves in some pretty bad views. Billionaires - take their stuff, make sure they have no political power, and help them have a decent live. Landlords - who are we talking here? The landlord class - take their stuff, make sure to keep an eye on them and help them live a decent life. Maybe teach them coding. Some old lady that rents out a room to supplement her income - why not let her, as long as the system makes it certain she is not charging some crazy amount of money and is taking care of the room and bills and everything. Nazis - exile them. Reeducate them. Some, many maybe, cannot be reformed, but a human life is the one thing you can never, ever restore. And you cant know which ones are the reformable or what might happen down the line. Make sure they have no power, exile them, make sure they are put to good use to the community. Normies - there is a lot that goes in here. Many different people. Help them live better lives is my solution.
Am I a horrible person for hating libs and normies with my guts, even more than I hate reactionaries ?
Maybe just bad. I think maybe you have reasoned yourself in this position, and probably with some reason. If it helps, people in general (including me and you) are dumb and cowardly as fuck. Some moreso than others, and some cant see or know the things you have seen or known. Many of them, especially libs, do come from the perspective of geniuniely wanting to help people in the only way they can. And people in general are not perfect - some are egoistical, some do things because they think they wont be caught, some do bad things, because they simply do not think about the consequences or implications. And of course some are just psychopaths and sociopaths that couldnt care less about others. Again, the answer to me is to help all of these live better. And make sure you have systems and institutions that can deprive the "dangerous ones" of power, and that said institutions and movements cannot be coopted by these (or on the other hand, by libs, who prefer talk and slogans over action)...
Here's a take you might not have considered: another name for 'praxis' is 'propaganda of the deed'. If communists, as a group, show that we don't care/won't go out of our way to help ideological foes, it means that anyone who does care won't want to join us. And for good reason. In an outright war, you of course don't want to heal and arm your enemies, but at every point before that, the propaganda value of helping an enemy is bigger than the physical cost of having one more able-bodied fascist out there.
Right now the struggle in most countries is still ideological. The movement needs to be the sort of place that people want to join. It's a happy coincidence that it overlaps with ethically virtuous actions.
