Тег: Wrestling

The problem of the stationary bandit’s tyranny cannot be solved with violence

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Some people believe that a stationary bandit can be defeated exclusively by initiating violence against them. From them, one may hear calls for a violent revolution. To some, such an idea may even seem reasonable; however, look at this matter from another perspective. To carry out a violent attack, it is necessary to gather a group of people capable of it, for such a task cannot be accomplished by complete pacifists or those ready to use weapons only for self-defense. Such people will emerge, naturally supported by interest groups who are also not opposed to violence as a tool for achieving goals. These people will attack the government, maiming and killing everyone who gets in their way along the way, and seize power for themselves. What happens next?

Nothing will change! One set of violent oppressors in power will be removed, and other violent oppressors will take their place. Of course, it is quite likely that the new regime will be more liberal, as in such an unstable position, it will not risk immediately resorting to the methods of its predecessors. But the stationary bandit himself will not go anywhere; he will still try to build a monopoly on power through violence. Gradually, the new faces in power will also strive for increasingly harsh orders. This is how it has always been and always will be with monopoly political power. Or does someone really expect that people for whom using violence was previously the norm will suddenly become peaceful and kind pacifists after seizing power? It would be great naivety to believe so!

It sounds as if we are supporting the state. However, these are merely practical considerations. Since we want to achieve a free, non-violent society, it is more advantageous for activists ready for radical action to focus on balancing the potential for violence by ensuring universal armament, which will deprive the stationary bandit of the ability to effectively apply force. Or better yet, think in general about the methods of eradicating violence from society, which we constantly talk about. Non-violence and freedom cannot be achieved through the seizure of political power and a mere change of faces at the helm of the stationary bandit!

Don’t criticize the fight against violence, or how to argue with those who are against the fight against violence

Voluntarist, Bitarch

As you know, we promote certain methods of combating violence: the use of reputational and financial tools to exert non-violent but quite effective influence on criminals of various kinds; universal armament (a balance of violence potential) to ensure everyone has the ability to defend themselves during a direct attack; and gene therapy as a means of eradicating violent tendencies in people prone to them. These methods are often criticized. Most often, this criticism stems from a lack of understanding—the critic has merely learned of the existence of the idea, dislikes it, and without even bothering to study it in detail, immediately begins to criticize it. But even if you have sufficiently grounded criticism of these ideas, there is no need to try to actively destroy them. This will only make things worse, and I will now explain why.

I will begin by stating that none of these ideas are promoted on a compulsory basis. Reputational and financial tools do not involve violent influence at all. Self-defense is justified, as it is a necessary response of a victim to the direct initiation of violence against them. The main point is to never initiate violence yourself. Gene therapy against violence is also not promoted as a forcibly imposed measure—it should be used only as an additional tool for protection against violent offenders during a direct attack (moreover, it is more humane; putting a bullet in the forehead is certainly worse than injecting a drug that suppresses violent tendencies). Additionally, people prone to violence can be pressured via reputational and financial methods so that they begin to seek treatment for their violent nature. As you can see, we are not proposing that anything be imposed on people by force. Our methods are either entirely non-violent or are implemented within the framework of self-defense during a direct attack.

If someone does not like our methods, simply do not apply them to yourself. After all, from our side, they will not affect you in any way unless you commit violence against us. Develop and promote your own methods of fighting violence, if you have any. Collectively, we will achieve a better result if each of us fights violence in their own way, rather than trying to sink those who are on the same side. Of course, any ideas are worth discussing—this is necessary for their development. But if those fighting violence spend their time actively “destroying” one another instead of developing their ideas, it will only play into the hands of the violent and nothing will change in the end. And I think you do not want your own actions to help violent people and support the existence of a social system whose order is based on the threat of applying violent measures, do you?

After these words, it is hardly possible to reasonably criticize any methods of fighting violence that do not involve forced imposition. Of course, the critic themselves may not be against violence but may be a supporter of violent methods of implementation. Well, in that case, they should first admit that they are, in fact, a supporter of violence, or perhaps a violent person themselves, so as not to mislead anyone. After all, the following rule applies in any case: if you support violent methods, then you are a supporter of violence; if you initiate violence against someone, then you are a violent person. And if someone speaks out against violence but simultaneously supports violent methods, then that person clearly has an issue with logic—one cannot be simultaneously for and against violence. In such a case, one must either think carefully about this contradiction or stop deceiving others and finally admit the violent nature of their position.