hahhahaha the use of violence to oppose the military and militaristic R&D... awesome... anyone else find this video to contradict itself? i sure do.. you fail ransackcansec... go smoke some more pot you hippie
A diversity of tactics is fundamental to any social struggle. The problem is not that some individuals wish to embrace more direct tactics, but rather that the large majority of activists continue to believe, despite the evidence that pacifism is an effective strategy. If you do not wish to participate in certain actions, that is of course your choice. However, it is counterproductive and divisive to criticize those who do.
A diversity of tactics is fundamental to any social struggle. The problem is not that some individuals wish to embrace more direct tactics, but rather that the large majority of activists continue to believe, despite the evidence that pacifism is an effective strategy. If you do not wish to participate in certain actions, that is of course your choice. However, it is counterproductive and divisive to criticize those who do.
so you don't want me expressing my pacifist objections to people throwing molotov cocktails but only to the corporate state?? "diversity of tactics" doesn't mean that we all have to shut up if we disagree with the violent tactics of others.
Of course you are free to express whatever objections you deem pertinent. However, with that being stated there is something to be said for expressing solidarity with those working towards similar goals as yourself. Furthermore, the use of the term 'violent tactics' is misleading. Destruction of property is not violence; you cannot commit an act of violence against an inanimate object, or in this case a building.
Watch the video gain. Sure, there are many definitions of violence for sure, but don't you agree that kicking someone and throwing a bottle full of flaming gasoline at him/her is physically violent?? The tank is engulfed in flames just like in war. That is what characters in the video are doing. I would also argue that saying you want to make war on the war profiteers is just over the top ridiculously, tragically ironic.
In the video the Molotov cocktail is thrown at the tank, and the building; inanimate objects, so no I do not define that as violence. As you said the tank is engulfed in flames, not people. Personally I do not find the statement make war on the war profiteers ridiculous. On the contrary, I find ridiculous and tragic the widespread notion that passive action will set into motion concrete change.
Our society as it currently exists is based upon widespread structural violence, nothing about our existence as part of the Western world is peaceful. In the words of author/activist Peter Gelderloos; "There is nothing in this world currently deserving of the name peace. Rather, it is a question of whose violence frightens us most, and on whose side we will stand."
What relativistic cynicism! Everyone and everything is fucked, etc. If I thought like that, I'd have done myself in by now. Also, if everything/everyone is violent and there's nothing we can do about it supposedly, how easy to excuse our own violence. Not far from a fascist view.
Pacifism does not mean "passivism." I'm not sure you even know what non-violent civil disobedience is. Study some history. Look up what Gandhi, Quakers and many others have done. Environmentalists refusing to get out of trees, etc. BTW, tanks don't go by themselves (the boy next door is DRIVING it)!
I am quite aware of history. Gandhi's success came in the wake of over a hundred years of often-violent struggle for independence by Indians. The Gandhi example, while obviously nonviolent, took place within a broader framework of a violent peripheral process. It was unique to a particular time in history in which the British Empire, and power was in sharp decline as a result of two world wars.
It was global violence perpetuated by war that severely hindered Britain's ability to control its colonial territories, and as such laid the necessary foundation for the success of Gandhi's movement.
Both violent and non-violent strategies exist on spectrum of possible actions, and to claim that only one is effective is to have a selective historical memory. Many tactics are necessary, and act in concert with each other to bring about social transformation.
right on, pierrejibb! we have to be the change we want to see in the world. the irony of saying make war on the warmongers and throwing a homemade bomb at them while saying you are against war!!
hahhahaha the use of violence to oppose the military and militaristic R&D... awesome... anyone else find this video to contradict itself? i sure do.. you fail ransackcansec... go smoke some more pot you hippie
wykydtron42 2 years ago 2
there is no such thing as non-violence.
longsaber 2 years ago
Good video. War sucks. Don't get too excited about "violence" from pacifists, it's just a bunch of drawings.
ThumperBunny43 3 years ago
A diversity of tactics is fundamental to any social struggle. The problem is not that some individuals wish to embrace more direct tactics, but rather that the large majority of activists continue to believe, despite the evidence that pacifism is an effective strategy. If you do not wish to participate in certain actions, that is of course your choice. However, it is counterproductive and divisive to criticize those who do.
lovelyvegan 3 years ago 2
A diversity of tactics is fundamental to any social struggle. The problem is not that some individuals wish to embrace more direct tactics, but rather that the large majority of activists continue to believe, despite the evidence that pacifism is an effective strategy. If you do not wish to participate in certain actions, that is of course your choice. However, it is counterproductive and divisive to criticize those who do.
lovelyvegan 3 years ago
so you don't want me expressing my pacifist objections to people throwing molotov cocktails but only to the corporate state?? "diversity of tactics" doesn't mean that we all have to shut up if we disagree with the violent tactics of others.
SonofTomJoad 3 years ago
Of course you are free to express whatever objections you deem pertinent. However, with that being stated there is something to be said for expressing solidarity with those working towards similar goals as yourself. Furthermore, the use of the term 'violent tactics' is misleading. Destruction of property is not violence; you cannot commit an act of violence against an inanimate object, or in this case a building.
lovelyvegan 3 years ago
Watch the video gain. Sure, there are many definitions of violence for sure, but don't you agree that kicking someone and throwing a bottle full of flaming gasoline at him/her is physically violent?? The tank is engulfed in flames just like in war. That is what characters in the video are doing. I would also argue that saying you want to make war on the war profiteers is just over the top ridiculously, tragically ironic.
SonofTomJoad 3 years ago
In the video the Molotov cocktail is thrown at the tank, and the building; inanimate objects, so no I do not define that as violence. As you said the tank is engulfed in flames, not people. Personally I do not find the statement make war on the war profiteers ridiculous. On the contrary, I find ridiculous and tragic the widespread notion that passive action will set into motion concrete change.
lovelyvegan 3 years ago 2
Our society as it currently exists is based upon widespread structural violence, nothing about our existence as part of the Western world is peaceful. In the words of author/activist Peter Gelderloos; "There is nothing in this world currently deserving of the name peace. Rather, it is a question of whose violence frightens us most, and on whose side we will stand."
lovelyvegan 3 years ago 2
What relativistic cynicism! Everyone and everything is fucked, etc. If I thought like that, I'd have done myself in by now. Also, if everything/everyone is violent and there's nothing we can do about it supposedly, how easy to excuse our own violence. Not far from a fascist view.
SonofTomJoad 3 years ago
Pacifism does not mean "passivism." I'm not sure you even know what non-violent civil disobedience is. Study some history. Look up what Gandhi, Quakers and many others have done. Environmentalists refusing to get out of trees, etc. BTW, tanks don't go by themselves (the boy next door is DRIVING it)!
SonofTomJoad 3 years ago
I am quite aware of history. Gandhi's success came in the wake of over a hundred years of often-violent struggle for independence by Indians. The Gandhi example, while obviously nonviolent, took place within a broader framework of a violent peripheral process. It was unique to a particular time in history in which the British Empire, and power was in sharp decline as a result of two world wars.
lovelyvegan 3 years ago 2
It was global violence perpetuated by war that severely hindered Britain's ability to control its colonial territories, and as such laid the necessary foundation for the success of Gandhi's movement.
lovelyvegan 3 years ago 3
Both violent and non-violent strategies exist on spectrum of possible actions, and to claim that only one is effective is to have a selective historical memory. Many tactics are necessary, and act in concert with each other to bring about social transformation.
lovelyvegan 3 years ago 2
right on, pierrejibb! we have to be the change we want to see in the world. the irony of saying make war on the warmongers and throwing a homemade bomb at them while saying you are against war!!
SonofTomJoad 3 years ago
i thought it was the other side that threw bombs
acab
pierrejbb 4 years ago
smoking!!!
amyresist 4 years ago
fucking awesome!
john193b 4 years ago 2