It's one thing when citizens of a country register their displeasure by rallying and speeches. It's another when they start rioting.

So I would like to know what prompted this thread. Where is it coming from? And where does it hope to go? Should we take a vote? All for more violence raise their hands? And then what?

Some clarification from the 'author' would be welcome at this point.

[ 18 February 2003: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

i think it's interesting that the last two threads that "the author" has begun (before this one) have been:

- the consumption tax (an idea that shifts much of the tax burden from the rich to middle-income people and the poor, whilst leaving investment income tax-free),

Militancy: basically taking a military form (top down command) and carrying weapons (from brassknuckles to shotguns)

quote:

---

William Domhoff (from his book "The Power Elite and the State"):
"...Liberals, labor, and minorities, despite their great numbers, never win much against the conservative coalition unless there is a fear of disruption and violence loose in the land due to the actions of strikers, civil rights demonstrators, angry rioters in northern ghettos, or students demonstrating against wars... I am asserting that social disruption, whether violent or non-violent, is an essential factor in any successful challenge to the power structures in the United States."

---

In the U.K. now, if Blair were to go ahead with the war, then the protest movement may begin to perceive violence as essential.

In the U.S., the state has a monopoly on violence. Violent movements would simply be crushed in the bud. Strategically speaking then, it should be advised against. The fact that violence often works is demonstrated by Washington's eagerness to use it, but activists should tread more warily.

One advantage of using violence is it would significantly raise the costs for the State in containing popular dissent. When the costs become unmanageable, the government will be forced to concede.

Then again, they could just gun us all down. Remember Kent State?

[ 18 February 2003: Message edited by: darkhorse ]

[ 18 February 2003: Message edited by: darkhorse ]

quote:

---

Violence: Destruction of property, harm to other human beings

---

It is interesting that you value property more that human beings.

If someone pours sand into the engine of a bulldozer to disable it from destroying a forest, is that a violent act? If yes, then why is destroying the bulldozer violent but the destruction of the forest not violent?

If blocking the path of a delegate or occupying the office of an MPP isn't violent, then why is blockading an abortion clinic violent?

Violence begets violence, and does not speak well for peace.

quote:

---

any other questions?

---

quote:

---

is that violent?

---

Does this hypothetical action have the support of a majority? Or is it a small group of people who think they know best? Because a small group of people who think they know best could do the same thing to a food bank, a community center, or a family planning centre & we'd see it for what it is: a small group of people who think they know best. And we'd probably consider it violent as well.

quote:

---

any other questions?

---

quote:

---

magoo you know as well as i that the powers that be are not going to legislate the removal of corporate bodies

---

Has a majority ever made it clear that that's what they want??

It seems to me that those who favour "direct action" are usually those who also know that that's their only hope; their politics are never, ever going to appeal to a democratic majority. If ALF could simply vote away eating meat, they would. If the Xtian right could vote away homosexuality, they would. If the KKK could vote people of colour back to another continent they would. But they can't.

The United States of America
The Republic of Ireland
The State of Israel

were all founded by violent action including assassination, murder, destruction of property, bombing, and war. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, etc.

I think the F15 showed massively that our protest was peaceful, and wants peace.

For real sustainable success, the form, function, and end goals of a movement or action must all be in line with eachother.

quote:

---

but is it not the responsibility of those in the society to work in the best interests of the society in which they live?

---

Some would say that firing gay teachers or closing down family planning clinics is in Canada's best interests. I don't agree, mind you, but we'd better come to a common agreement about what the best interests of our country is. We can't just take 30 million opinions and start acting on them.

quote:

---

and what about economic democracy?

---

Does this truly exist anywhere? And if so, did it not originate when enough people wanted it?

quote:

---

democracy in the media?

---

People choose what they want to hear and what they want to believe. You and I are here, aren't we? Anyone who tires of the corporate press is welcome to join us.

quote:

---

why should i sit still because they have been duped into believing that the interests of "big money" are their own?

---

"hmmm," the intellectual says to himself from his podium, "is violence justified?".

the answer to the question lies within the group of people who are actually participating in that struggle and debating the tactics they wish to use, not from some abstract commentary from those outside of that struggle.

if there is a larger, intellectual question here, it's how the larger community of activists plan to deal/relate with those activists who choose militant tactics (which sometimes get labeled as 'violent').

such issues as solidarity, tolerance, diversity of tactics need to be discussed. because whether or not someone objects to more militant tactics isn't going to suddenly convince a group to 'not do that'. they're probably going to do it, anyway, it's the reaction for the other groups that compose the movement that is important.

quote:

---

I suspect your group of screwdriver-wielding activists would only be reaching for the screwdriver because they know that not enough other Canadians share their views to make democracy an option for them. If it were, why wouldn't they take it?

---

If we were represented by true democratic process or institutions, screwdriver-wielding activists would not be necessary. Since we lack these institutions and are marginalized by the process, people are left with no alternative.

quote:

---

statica: the reason this question strikes me as strange is because it seems rather like someone intellectually pondering a question while overseeing the movement..."hmmm," the intellectual says to himself from his podium, "is violence justified?".

---

But hey, that's just my opinion. Carry on.

[ 18 February 2003: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

quote:

---

For me it sounds like someone compiling a list of social activists who are willing to endorse violence. Maybe I am paranoid, but it does happen.

---

quote:

---

In this argument, though, the dismantling of a McDonald's and its replacement with a community coop would be a very effective consciousness-raiser, no?

---

To tell you the truth, I don't know how effective it would really be. Big and showy perhaps. Make the news maybe. But effective?

What's more, the right could make the same claim, as they proceeded to ("non-violently") dismantle some institution of their choosing. I think that claiming a "right" to such an action, when it would necessarily give the same right to any other Canadian, would be a deal with the devil.

quote:

---

If we were represented by true democratic process or institutions, screwdriver-wielding activists would not be necessary. Since we lack these institutions and are marginalized by the process, people are left with no alternative.

---

Are you suggesting that if Canada were a "true" democracy, then fast-food restaurants wouldn't exist? Or that there wouldn't always be some small faction of society willing to take a screwdriver to it?

quote:

---

Watch out people, it could be entrapment!

---

King Arthur: Bloody peasant!

Peasant: Oh what a give away! You hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. You saw him repressing me?"

quote:

---

ok i shall change my from line.

---

and by the way, im not advocating violence...im not a dogmatic pacifist, either...if you resort to violence at any point, you had better be aware that there will be serious repercussions for doing so because the state will use it as the basis for more blatant violent repression...it shouldnt be resorted to mindlessly
by the same token i refuse to denounce those who do legitimately feel they have no other resort other than to resist violently

quote:

---

. I think in this case "I'm probably paranoid, but..." is a wise safety measure.

---

Let me correct some mistakes in your post. 'Corporate Owned' is a misnomer. Corporations are entities owned by people. If you owned McDonalds stock or a mutual fund that invested in McDonalds, you potentially were damaging your own property.

Actually, McDonalds is a organization that licenses franchises. The businesses themselves are usually privately owned or private corporations. You need at least $1 million cash to start a restaurant.

Dismantling the restaurant presents some problems. First, you've probably put 10 people out of work immediately, and from working at McDonalds, they probably didn't have a lot of money to begin with. That's not nice! Of course they could work at, by your description, a large appliance dump.

Second, not all businesses need fridges, stoves and shelves. Most need a confidant public to spend their money, without worrying about yahoo's stealing their Filet O'Fishes in a cooperative manner.

quote:

---

In this argument, though, the dismantling of a McDonald's and its replacement with a community coop would be a very effective consciousness-raiser, no?

---

quote:

---

if and when oppressed groups/revolutionary movements decide they have to use violence, the debates of vanguardists dont really mean much ultimately

---

It seems as though every time the topic of violence (aka "diversity of tactics") comes up, someone will point out that throughout history, people have needed some degree of violence to break the brutal yoke of oppression, and will bring up credible examples to back this. Invariably though, the examples are of people who did not have the opportunity to vote, who were denied free speech, or who did not enjoy a guarantee of basic human rights.

How is a university student who disagrees with a war on Iraq denied his/her rights? How is an "Earth First" member denied a vote? How is an ALF member oppressed?

Before these historical situations can be used to justify violence in the present, the present needs to be related back to the situation in the past... and most of the time this comparison just doesn't cut it.

quote:

---

dismantle McDonalds and replace it with Chompsky's (tm), an eco and labour friendly fast food place.

---

Hehe. Lemme guess: Noam "Chompsky" dressed in a clown suit and handing out balloons?

quote:

---

Hehe. Lemme guess: Noam "Chompsky" dressed in a clown suit and handing out balloons?

---

quote:

---

Actually, why not put your Chompsky's right beside the McDonalds & let the public decide? If your food is better, cheaper, or both, then you won't need to get your hands dirty dismantling the McDonalds - it'll dismantle itself.

---

It's not hard to do. Get a Congresscritter to slide in a provision that grants a special exemption to a "Corporation incorporated on the date of November 17, 1977, in the State of Delaware" and blah blah blah.

quote:

---

Magoo and sheep, let us recall that under capitalism there would be no corporate welfare.

---

quote:

---

Yes, but as we all know competiton is just a way for the rich to get richer as they continue to be successful while the poor remain poor because PUBLIC education failed them by not teaching them to not repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

---