imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
latest news
best of news




A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List


IMC Network:

Original Cities africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles

When is Political Violence Justified?

by Phoenix Sunday, Jul. 11, 2004 at 10:44 AM

Today I am writing about a very sensitive subject. Indeed, at this point in time it is a very dangerous subject to write about. The subject is political violence: when is it justified and when is it not justified. There are many positions on this topic and like most topics there are extreme positions. One extreme position is that political violence is never justified. This is the belief held by pacifists and followers of Gandhi. At the other extreme we find believers in political violence ranging from Stalinists, some Anarchists, Fascists, to Imperialists, among others. These political ideologies generally support the use of violence to achieve their ends.

When is Political Violence Justified? Author: Phoenix

Today I am writing about a very sensitive subject.  Indeed, at this point in time it is a very dangerous subject to write about.  The subject is political violence: when is it justified and when is it not justified.  There are many positions on this topic and like most topics there are extreme positions.  One extreme position is that political violence is never justified.  This is the belief held by pacifists and followers of Gandhi.  At the other extreme we find believers in political violence ranging from Stalinists, some Anarchists, Fascists, to Imperialists, among others.  These political ideologies generally support the use of violence to achieve their ends.

My position is not extreme.  In fact, upon closer inspection, I think it is not in the least bit radical.  I believe that there are times when political violence is justified but that these situations are not encountered frequently and in all cases political violence can only be justified on the basis of the preservation of categorically imperative values, such as the rights to life and liberty, which cannot be compromised without extinguishing them.  Said differently, there are various rights that we have by nature and the negation of those rights destroys our humanity.  That which reduces us to less than human kills us qua our human nature.  Since the right to self defense of our existence as humans is absolute, violence is justified when it is necessary for preserving our human nature.

Some may argue that if human nature is natural, it cannot be removed from us.  I beg to differ.  When you treat a human being as an animal you reduce the human being to an animal (i.e. you have killed the human).  Our nature is not found only within us but it is found in our relationship to our surroundings.  As our relationship to our surroundings changes, it impinges upon our nature and changes our nature.  We exist as embedded entities and the notion of atomic selves (that is, selves separable completely from other selves) is absurd.  I am not only that which is bounded by my outer layer of cells, I am that and I am my relationship to the world around me which includes my relationship to others.  When my relationship to others becomes hierarchical, I am denied my true nature as I am bound by the constraints of the hierarchical relationship.  If I am to remain human, I must change the relationship between myself and others such that I am no longer subject to a hierarchy.  Anything less than a voluntary relationship between myself and others negates my nature.  Since it negates my nature, it kills me qua my nature as a human being and I have a right to restore my nature as a human being, even by using violence if there is no other option.

It is important to distinguish between past, present and future when considering violence.  Violence in response to past injustices is not self defense.  You cannot change the past.  Relationships exist in the present and violence in the present does not change the past unless access to the future exists.  What I mean by this is if, hypothetically, we could see into the future with absolute accuracy then violence in the present would have a causal relationship to the past as individuals in the past would be able to see the future.  Such individuals with the ability to see the future accurately would adjust their behavior to avoid negative consequences further down the line.  If a violator of rights could see clearly your "retaliation" in the future, that might cause the violator not to engage in the violations.  If this were our reality, present violence against past violations might be viewed as defensive.  However, we know of no cases where actions taken in the present have changed the past and therefore, cannot assume that they do change the past.  Since we have no basis in believing that our present actions change the past, no action taken in the present in relation to a violation in the past can be said to be defensive.  Defense, for it to be defense, must have some chance, even if very slight, of stopping the violation or reducing it.  We know that this is the case when a defensive action and a violation are simultaneous relative to our place in space/time, but we do not know this to be the case otherwise.

On the other hand, it is possible that various actions taken in the present could defend against violations in the future, but the question is whether we can know that such violations in the future will really take place.  For example, even if I can prove that a specific individual will attack me in two days in such a way as to deny me my nature, that proof is likely contingent upon various assumptions.  For example, I am assuming that an asteroid will not crash into the Earth between now and then and end all life on Earth.  I am assuming that the person will not have a change in heart over the next two days.  There are an infinity of assumptions I am making when I believe that I can prove that an individual will violate my nature at some future coordinate in space/time.  Since these are assumptions, in the absence of being able to see the future, I cannot prove that my action is defensive.  Indeed, since nothing may happen in two days, my action can only be interpreted as aggression.  It is, in fact, a violation of the other individual's nature and he or she would be justified in defending himself or herself against me in the present.

It follows from the above that one cannot, in the present, defend against violations in the past and in the future.  One can do nothing about the past, except learn from it, and one can do nothing about the future except prepare oneself for the possibility of needing to engage in defense when that point in space/time is arrived upon.  The use of violence for retaliation or prevention, therefore, is unethical.  Executing a person for murdering another is murder and murdering a person in order to prevent him or her from murdering in the future is murder.  Preemptive war is even more absurd because it murders many that have no causal connection to future concerns.

It also follows from the above that the use of violence in the present when one's nature is being negated and there is no other option to preserve one's nature is ethically justified.  For example, if, during a demonstration, a police officer abuses his authority with the intent of denying you your rights, it is ethical (though perhaps illegal) for you to resist.  If every attempt at peaceful resistance fails, then it is your ethical right to use violence if that violence will restore your nature or has a chance of doing so.

Is all violence equal?  For example, if I defend myself against a minor assault by beheading the assailant is that the same thing as merely blocking the assailant and temporarily disabling him or her?  If we are concerned about only using violence when there is no other option it must be because there is something abhorrent about violence.  If there is something abhorrent about violence and there is something less abhorrent about some alternative actions, then it stands to reason that there is some continuum of abhorrence and that violence is some range within that continuum.  There must, therefore, be kinds of violence which are less abhorrent than other kinds of violence.  The degree that one is willing to engage in abhorrent behavior must be justified.  Since one's rights are absolute, one cannot compare an absolute to degrees of abhorrence.  Killing is justified if it is the only alternative in preserving one's human nature, but when violence less than killing will do the same, then it is ethically imperative to take those steps necessary to minimize the level of violence to just that which is necessary to preserve one's human nature.  This is important because the violator has rights too.  The violator has a right to life.  Since he or she has chosen to violate your rights, you have the right to oppose him or her.  His or her own decision (i.e. to violate your rights) justifies your right to defend your rights even if that means taking the assailants rights away.  However, since the goal is to protect rights, one should violate the assailants rights only in so far as it is necessary to preserve one's own rights.  If you can preserve your own rights without taking away the assailants right to life, then that is what you are ethically constrained to do.

There has been a great cost to following Gandhi's example.  Gandhi's methods work when the violator is bound by ethical principles which he or she is unwilling to defile.  Gandhi's methods do not work when the violator dispenses with all ethical principles.  Gandhi could resist the British because they had ethical principles.  Gandhi would have failed against Hitler.  Fascism cannot be opposed by pacifism.  So long as we have "peace monitors" among us who demand that violence always be avoided, even in the face of unethical oppressors, we will be forced into conditions beneath our dignity as human beings.

Report this post as:

Listed below are the 10 latest comments of 6 posted about this article.
These comments are anonymously submitted by the website visitors.
frescxa pathetic Sunday, Jul. 11, 2004 at 7:06 PM
black oak tea folded in 1/2-- 14" Sunday, Jul. 11, 2004 at 10:53 PM
are you Serious? Illuminok Thursday, Jan. 17, 2008 at 8:21 PM

Local News

Change Links September 2018 posted S02 10:22PM

More Scandals Rock Southern California Nuke Plant San Onofre A30 11:09PM

Site Outage Friday A30 3:49PM

Change Links August 2018 A14 1:56AM

Setback for Developer of SC Farm Land A12 11:09PM

More problems at Shutdown San Onofre Nuke J29 10:40PM

Change Links 2018 July posted J09 8:27PM

More Pix: "Families Belong Together," Pasadena J02 7:16PM

"Families Belong Together" March, Pasadena J02 7:08PM

Short Report on the Families Belong Together Protest in Los Angeles J30 11:26PM

Summer 2018 National Immigrant Solidarity Network News Alert! J11 6:58AM

Watch the Debate: Excluded Candidates for Governor of California M31 5:20AM

Change Links June 2018 posted M28 7:41AM

The Montrose Peace Vigil at 12 Years M22 8:01PM

Unity Archive Project M21 9:42AM

Dianne Feinstein's Promotion of War, Secret Animal Abuse, Military Profiteering, Censorshi M17 10:22PM

CA Senate Bill 1303 would require an independent coroner rather than being part of police M10 9:08PM

Three years after OC snitch scandal, no charges filed against sheriffs deputies M10 8:57PM

California police agencies violate Brown Act (open meetings) M02 8:31PM

Insane Company Wants To Send Nuke Plant Waste To New Mexico A29 11:47PM

Change Links May 2018 A27 8:40AM

Worker-Owned Car Wash on Vermont Closed A27 5:37AM


lausd whistle blower A11 6:58AM

Website Upgrade A10 10:02AM

Help KCET and UCLA identify 60s-70s Chicano images A04 8:02PM

UCLA Luskin: Casting Youth Justice in a Different Light A02 6:58PM

Change Links April 2018 A01 6:27PM

More Local News...

Other/Breaking News

Muselières syndicales, muselières patronales S21 7:19AM

Jeff Bezos, Amazon, The Washington Post, Whole Foods, Etc S21 2:50AM

Why Choose Nut Milk Over Cows' Milk S21 1:01AM

Antrhopocène, le grand effondrement S19 9:53AM

Creative Destruction Hack Diamonds Windows/iOS/Android - Creative Destruction Generator S19 12:51AM

Abolir l'économie S18 11:18AM

The Dictatorship of Corporations S17 5:26PM

18 Lethal Consequences Of Hunting S17 3:13PM

Paraphysique de l'outplacement déontologue S15 6:51AM

Creative Destruction Hack Mod Generator S15 3:49AM

Shopping du bashing S14 8:42AM

After Lehman Brothers, Experts Say Global Financial Crisis Can Happen Again S13 8:28PM

“Animaniacs in Concert!” Starring Voice Legend Rob Paulsen S12 9:30PM

Probabilités de fin d'humanité S12 6:49AM

Florida Area of Migrant Farmworkers Denied Right to Construct Health Clinic near NaplesCIW S11 2:57AM

Propagande de virus, virus de propagande S10 7:34AM

Steer clear of work morality! S09 12:10PM

Sweatshop Lodge Ceremony Continues in US Fed Prisons Led by Inmates S08 6:17PM

Paraphysique de l'origami S08 7:11AM

The Shortwave Report 09/07/18 Listen Globally! S06 11:23PM

August 2018 Honduras Coup update S06 12:28PM

Du réussissement putréfié S06 10:55AM

Brett Kavanaugh Filled The 5th Circuit With Execution Judges S06 6:14AM

Log S06 4:25AM

Augusta Georgia Woman Gets 5 Year Prison Sentence for Writing About Russians Crime Acts S05 8:29AM

Paraphysique de contextualité S05 8:29AM

Crisis Regulation in Global Capitalism S03 3:39PM

Ex-voto de réification S03 10:24AM

More Breaking News...
© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy