I abhor violence, both witnessing and exercising it, but I accept and support it if it is used as a form of defense against abuse, whether systematic or personal.
In short: I personally would not set fire to an ICE vehicle, but I would applaud anyone who did.
This is a really good article going over class basis of pacifism, and touching on its historical failure to undo injustice:
What about Pacifism / pacifist socialism? Is violence necessary to acheive socialism? What about Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi? audiobook
Some quotes:
Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?
It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.
But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.
- Engels - Principles of Communism
On the question of whether the armed struggle is the only path to liberation, I would answer that at least in the case of our country, we have no other path. And we think that in the immense majority of latin american countries, there is no other path than the armed struggle. It seems to be the same case for countries in Asia and Africa. In general imperialism counts on, in every way, joining forces with the oligarchy, of every country, to impede the democratic revolution in every country. And its hanging people with a rope that can only be cut by armed struggle.
Revolutionaries didn’t choose armed struggle as the best path. Its the path the oppressors imposed on the people. So people only have two choices: To suffer, or to fight.
I tell my kids, never start it, but if someone hits you, hit them back hard enough that they won’t want to do it again. I feel like this works all the way up to state level doctrine.
I beat my dick into submission daily.
Depends on the application. It’s a tool that has necessary use cases, but just like you don’t need a sledgehammer for a nail, you can certainly make things worse by using it, or slip into excess. I support the right of the oppressed to use violence to liberate themselves, and the right of those to use violence to free the oppressed.
Never start a fight, but always finish it.
I condemn the opressor and agressor violence only
I’m opposed to violence, however I define it differently to how the state does. One example of violence that wouldn’t be considered by the state to be violence is calling the cops.
Violence is a hierarchy and as soon as you understand that, the more you understand it as a meaningless term.
I think that violence can be adequately defined as “the instigation of aggression/harm against peaceful beings.” Hierarchy is not strictly required for this.
