Insignificant goals, such as : "the struggle for rights ; for higher wages ; all sorts of solidarity with someone and somewhere ..." - cannot justify violence .This is too little to make sense in destroying the "enemies", no matter how bloodthirsty sadists they are. Such a "solution to the problem" will be similar to "banal" terror - targeted, local, ... useless, scaring potential supporters away from you and attracting various nihilistic sociopaths. A change in the social order in the state (in its own!) , according to a pronounced and understandable program, brings violence into a legitimate field , as a result of inevitability , gives it meaningfulness . The ghostly "rights" (handouts) negotiated from the state by the first generation will be emasculated and then taken away from the next generation. There must be a Goal , with a capital letter !
Thank you for your comment Igor, I think we agree! Violence is inherently political and accordingly must be wielded politically to be effective. Unfortunately video games aren't great at dealing with political questions 😂
The question is always who does any violence benefit, and who is it applied against? And of course, violence is broader than the direct, pure component of physical pain. Ultimately it's a means to a goal.
Watch Hollywood movies : a lot of violence, but ...Who is granted this right? 1. Singles (they are "allowed") 2. Law enforcement agencies ("state security") 3. Maniacs 4.Terrorists 5. "Popular resistance" in the framework of science fiction films, the average person, as a rule (!), is destined to play the role of a ruminant animal, shackled by fear and waiting for a) the victory of "justice" b) "inevitable" death. There is the cultivation of "helplessness", soft-heartedness, and the discrediting of violent resistance on the part of the majority of the population. Your good example with games reminded me of Hollywood "action movies": "Sit tight, we'll do everything ourselves!" ; "Sit still :nothing depends on you , you decide nothing !" and finally , "It's better to participate in violence Here - in the cinema (on the couch) , in the rest of your life - be a " law- abiding" organism "
I agree with this, but... I also feel like this almost a moot point. I see no possible application of violence with a liberatory character for me to enact. Even if I were a single trained elite soldier - I'm most definitely not, but even if I were - I wouldn't know where to start. Even being a trained soldier willing to die does not mean there is a particularly useful place to apply violence as a Western dissident, is there? I mean, there have been trained soldiers and spies in the West who decided they hate this system and now they're doing podcasts... or are dead, as we well know.
I almost feel that if there were a useful place for us Western dissidents to apply violence, we wouldn't be having this conversation...
I see what you mean. There's an obvious power component to violence (and to using it productively), in that there can't be violence without power and violence is a form of power in itself.
To properly use 'violence' in its broad form, we must seize state power.
But I think this happens in the second step; the first step is to realize that violence is part of our daily lives whether we see it or not, and that we have to rethink how we've been brought up to think about it.
And of course it happens collectively! Video games are great at creating individual heroes but nothing in the real world happens with just one person.
In the West I think what we are primed to do right now is build solidarity with liberation movements such as the Palestinian Resistance, Ansarallah, etc.
„violence is part of our daily lives whether we see it or not, and that we have to rethink how we've been brought up to think about it“
Fully agreed. Like you said, for example breaking down what an eviction is - it means that a person with a gun will show up at your door and drag you out onto the streets if you don't leave.
Violence happens every day, the state itself is constituted by violence. 90% of the time, the violence (to its own citizens) is only implied. But the threat is there at all times.
I also think that people are extremely squeamish about looking that particular fact into the eye. (If facts have eyes, lol.) It is unsettling and humiliating to consider what really constitutes the public order that one is a subject of. Most people are uncomfortable even thinking about it.
But if we ever want to change things, we have to be unafraid to think about violence as a concrete physical reality, and not a kind of moral boogieman or philosophical topic of inquiry.
Insignificant goals, such as : "the struggle for rights ; for higher wages ; all sorts of solidarity with someone and somewhere ..." - cannot justify violence .This is too little to make sense in destroying the "enemies", no matter how bloodthirsty sadists they are. Such a "solution to the problem" will be similar to "banal" terror - targeted, local, ... useless, scaring potential supporters away from you and attracting various nihilistic sociopaths. A change in the social order in the state (in its own!) , according to a pronounced and understandable program, brings violence into a legitimate field , as a result of inevitability , gives it meaningfulness . The ghostly "rights" (handouts) negotiated from the state by the first generation will be emasculated and then taken away from the next generation. There must be a Goal , with a capital letter !
Thank you for your comment Igor, I think we agree! Violence is inherently political and accordingly must be wielded politically to be effective. Unfortunately video games aren't great at dealing with political questions 😂
The question is always who does any violence benefit, and who is it applied against? And of course, violence is broader than the direct, pure component of physical pain. Ultimately it's a means to a goal.
Watch Hollywood movies : a lot of violence, but ...Who is granted this right? 1. Singles (they are "allowed") 2. Law enforcement agencies ("state security") 3. Maniacs 4.Terrorists 5. "Popular resistance" in the framework of science fiction films, the average person, as a rule (!), is destined to play the role of a ruminant animal, shackled by fear and waiting for a) the victory of "justice" b) "inevitable" death. There is the cultivation of "helplessness", soft-heartedness, and the discrediting of violent resistance on the part of the majority of the population. Your good example with games reminded me of Hollywood "action movies": "Sit tight, we'll do everything ourselves!" ; "Sit still :nothing depends on you , you decide nothing !" and finally , "It's better to participate in violence Here - in the cinema (on the couch) , in the rest of your life - be a " law- abiding" organism "
I agree with this, but... I also feel like this almost a moot point. I see no possible application of violence with a liberatory character for me to enact. Even if I were a single trained elite soldier - I'm most definitely not, but even if I were - I wouldn't know where to start. Even being a trained soldier willing to die does not mean there is a particularly useful place to apply violence as a Western dissident, is there? I mean, there have been trained soldiers and spies in the West who decided they hate this system and now they're doing podcasts... or are dead, as we well know.
I almost feel that if there were a useful place for us Western dissidents to apply violence, we wouldn't be having this conversation...
I see what you mean. There's an obvious power component to violence (and to using it productively), in that there can't be violence without power and violence is a form of power in itself.
To properly use 'violence' in its broad form, we must seize state power.
But I think this happens in the second step; the first step is to realize that violence is part of our daily lives whether we see it or not, and that we have to rethink how we've been brought up to think about it.
And of course it happens collectively! Video games are great at creating individual heroes but nothing in the real world happens with just one person.
In the West I think what we are primed to do right now is build solidarity with liberation movements such as the Palestinian Resistance, Ansarallah, etc.
„violence is part of our daily lives whether we see it or not, and that we have to rethink how we've been brought up to think about it“
Fully agreed. Like you said, for example breaking down what an eviction is - it means that a person with a gun will show up at your door and drag you out onto the streets if you don't leave.
Violence happens every day, the state itself is constituted by violence. 90% of the time, the violence (to its own citizens) is only implied. But the threat is there at all times.
I also think that people are extremely squeamish about looking that particular fact into the eye. (If facts have eyes, lol.) It is unsettling and humiliating to consider what really constitutes the public order that one is a subject of. Most people are uncomfortable even thinking about it.
But if we ever want to change things, we have to be unafraid to think about violence as a concrete physical reality, and not a kind of moral boogieman or philosophical topic of inquiry.
Exactly!
Self defense is not violence. Read that again.
I'm easily as radical and as brave as you, so piss off
You sure don't sound like it. And I don't trust you🤷♀️
I'm not asking you to trust me, I'm asking you to piss off