Weird how the Boston Tea party was essentially vandalism and is now looked at as the turning point for American independence. Will smashing a window at Bank of America be looked at the same way to future generations, or are we so complacent to the bank over lords that we will go back to accepting what they allow us to have?
This article doesn’t adequately present the position of pacifists. It portrays pacifists as holding defective views that they do not actually hold. Furthermore, the reasons for pacifism that the article argues against are not the good strong reasons for pacifism that actually exist. The article argues against a “straw man”.
The most serious mischaracterization is that pacifism is the same as passivism. These two words may sound the same, but have different meanings. The former is a rejection of violence in favor of non-violence, the latter is a rejection of action in favor of passivity. Pacifists do not advocate passivity, they advocate non-violence. Non-violence and action can go together. There is no contradiction in the term “non-violent direct action”. Gandhi and MLK jr. were not passive.
Liam Fox writes “If your argument is simply that violence begets violence, you’re ignoring the fact that continued passivity has only encouraged increased violence… To acquiesce, and accept their terms for your compliance, is not a victory for passivity… It’s a slave mentality.” With these words he clearly portrays those who advocate against violence as advocating just sitting back and doing nothing. They don’t.
The other mischaracterization is that the central argument against violence is a moral one (which is isn’t) rather than a practical one (which it is). Fox does not state the pacifist argument outright; he simply argues throughout the entire article that violence, in these circumstances, is not immoral. But pacifists don’t typically argue that violent action is immoral; critics of violence much more commonly draw attention to the harm done to social movements by the use of violence.
Fox states: “Black Bloc tactics have been the equivalent of a single courageous individual taking a stand against an overwhelming enemy, hoping that others will hear their plea and come to their aid.” And then Fox observes with disdain that the public doesn’t come to their aid.
But, the pacifists have been saying, you shouldn’t be surprised. You can imagine the millions of onlookers as the individual takes on the overwhelming enemy; the onlookers are completely unaware of why this individual is acting the way he is. As far as they know, he is being a complete ass for no reason, and that’s exactly what the enemy tells the onlookers. They stand there for a bit and say “look at this dangerous lunatic causing destruction – you can see why we have to crush him.” Then the onlookers all applaud as the enemy subdues the individual and locks him up.
Pacifists argue that those who use violent tactics do all the work of “Agents Provocateurs” without the police needing to get involved. If violent tactics were such a great idea it would be pretty stupid for police to do what they did in, say, Montebello, Quebec in 2007:
Fox completely ignores the criticism that violent tactics harm social movements by alienating the masses and providing police with excuses to use their superior brute force and crack down on ALL protestors (even the non-violent ones). He also completely ignores the many ways one can be radical in direct action without the use of violence. These two points, I would say, form the entirety of the pacifist position and their argument against violence. Odd that they are the two things missing from a supposed defense against the critics of violent action.
Except anyone who does business with Bank of America chose to do business with Bank of America. Come back to me when they arbitrarily start imposes taxes and forcing people to quarter their soldiers in their homes, then I'll support smashing their windows.
"We need to stop offering harsh judgment of Black Bloc tactics"
Sorry, you can only use violence to defend against violence, not from greed or stupidity or tax policy you don't like. You don't get the right to smash store windows because some banks lent money to people under adjustable rate mortgages that they perhaps didn't understand, or used complex derivatives to increase the profitability of those loans, or received bailouts when the whole scheme went t**s up when large numbers of those loans reset and people couldn't pay. You don't get to complain about exploited workers in a free Country where you can quit whenever you like and the Courts are there to address any actual illegal activity.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anomaly100Feb 15, 2012Buried
FYI: http://www.infoshop.org/page/Blackbloc-Faq
anomaly100Feb 16, 2012Buried
I do not condone any violence from Occupy or the Tea Party.
atomheartmotherFeb 16, 2012Buried
Nor do I, but it's worth noting that there's been very little of it coming from the Tea Party, and a whole lot out of OWS.
donutmasterFeb 16, 2012Buried
Weird how the Boston Tea party was essentially vandalism and is now looked at as the turning point for American independence. Will smashing a window at Bank of America be looked at the same way to future generations, or are we so complacent to the bank over lords that we will go back to accepting what they allow us to have?
lemonrindFeb 16, 2012Buried
The Boston Tea Party WAS vandalism. Period.
donutmasterFeb 17, 2012Buried
I didn't choose to give them my tax money.
snefferdyFeb 24, 2012Buried
This article doesn’t adequately present the position of pacifists. It portrays pacifists as holding defective views that they do not actually hold. Furthermore, the reasons for pacifism that the article argues against are not the good strong reasons for pacifism that actually exist. The article argues against a “straw man”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
The most serious mischaracterization is that pacifism is the same as passivism. These two words may sound the same, but have different meanings. The former is a rejection of violence in favor of non-violence, the latter is a rejection of action in favor of passivity. Pacifists do not advocate passivity, they advocate non-violence. Non-violence and action can go together. There is no contradiction in the term “non-violent direct action”. Gandhi and MLK jr. were not passive.
Liam Fox writes “If your argument is simply that violence begets violence, you’re ignoring the fact that continued passivity has only encouraged increased violence… To acquiesce, and accept their terms for your compliance, is not a victory for passivity… It’s a slave mentality.” With these words he clearly portrays those who advocate against violence as advocating just sitting back and doing nothing. They don’t.
The other mischaracterization is that the central argument against violence is a moral one (which is isn’t) rather than a practical one (which it is). Fox does not state the pacifist argument outright; he simply argues throughout the entire article that violence, in these circumstances, is not immoral. But pacifists don’t typically argue that violent action is immoral; critics of violence much more commonly draw attention to the harm done to social movements by the use of violence.
Fox states: “Black Bloc tactics have been the equivalent of a single courageous individual taking a stand against an overwhelming enemy, hoping that others will hear their plea and come to their aid.” And then Fox observes with disdain that the public doesn’t come to their aid.
But, the pacifists have been saying, you shouldn’t be surprised. You can imagine the millions of onlookers as the individual takes on the overwhelming enemy; the onlookers are completely unaware of why this individual is acting the way he is. As far as they know, he is being a complete ass for no reason, and that’s exactly what the enemy tells the onlookers. They stand there for a bit and say “look at this dangerous lunatic causing destruction – you can see why we have to crush him.” Then the onlookers all applaud as the enemy subdues the individual and locks him up.
Pacifists argue that those who use violent tactics do all the work of “Agents Provocateurs” without the police needing to get involved. If violent tactics were such a great idea it would be pretty stupid for police to do what they did in, say, Montebello, Quebec in 2007:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2007/08/22/ot-police-070822.html
Fox completely ignores the criticism that violent tactics harm social movements by alienating the masses and providing police with excuses to use their superior brute force and crack down on ALL protestors (even the non-violent ones). He also completely ignores the many ways one can be radical in direct action without the use of violence. These two points, I would say, form the entirety of the pacifist position and their argument against violence. Odd that they are the two things missing from a supposed defense against the critics of violent action.
barackalypseFeb 16, 2012Buried
These idiots are going to get someone killed, hopefully it isn't someone innocent.
barackalypseFeb 16, 2012Buried
Except anyone who does business with Bank of America chose to do business with Bank of America. Come back to me when they arbitrarily start imposes taxes and forcing people to quarter their soldiers in their homes, then I'll support smashing their windows.
barackalypseFeb 16, 2012Buried
"We need to stop offering harsh judgment of Black Bloc tactics"
Sorry, you can only use violence to defend against violence, not from greed or stupidity or tax policy you don't like. You don't get the right to smash store windows because some banks lent money to people under adjustable rate mortgages that they perhaps didn't understand, or used complex derivatives to increase the profitability of those loans, or received bailouts when the whole scheme went t**s up when large numbers of those loans reset and people couldn't pay. You don't get to complain about exploited workers in a free Country where you can quit whenever you like and the Courts are there to address any actual illegal activity.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.