Violence is typically taken up by actors on their behalf. In an organized state this is, well, generally the state. In non-state activity, this tends to be their friends and family. In societies with weak or nonexistent centralized states, you see this in the form of honor societies being willing to have the young and healthy take up arms and feuds on behalf of offenses against elderly, children, or disabled who they have ties with.
I feel no desire to outsource offense, and that is probably what bugs me most. Your theory seems to justify expansion and to turn outward instead of inward. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying in this regard.
I feel no desire to outsource offense, and that is probably what bugs me most. Your theory seems to justify expansion and to turn outward instead of inward. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying in this regard.
Well, if the true basal motivation driving life and decisions is the threat of violence, and we are merely outsourcing our violence to a larger entity, we have established a few fundamental constraints on our ethos. First, we believe violence is necessary. Second, violence is justified. And third, that the only things preventing us from using violence to gain advantage over others is the size of the threat.
To every force there is an equal and opposite counterpart. We have established that violence to gain advantage is justified, and we outsourced our violence to a much larger entity. Therefore by this fundamental basal ethos, we must expect that that larger entity shares our values. Only now, this entity has many opportunities where it has no larger rival. It must then use violence to gain advantage. This plays out as an expansionist policy because as weaker entities are encountered, this government must act in the exploitive interest of its constituency and destroy or incorporate the smaller entity’s resources… That is what I see as far as I can gather from this abstraction of violence as a basal motivation underpinning all social engagement.
It is not that I really disagree here, or anything like that. My intuition is sending up hazy red flags in a very half ass signal from an unexplored region of thought. I see what you’re trying to get at, and in a certain scope it makes sense, but I am concerned about the broader overall implications and where this leads. I think you’re primarily posing the idea as a different scope of violence, but I am focused on all types of violence, where invoking the word implies all potential scopes.
I’m also super cynical about the legal system, with extensive first hand experience of how it is not in any way shape or form a justice system outside of fantasy fiction. If you do not have around $250k to burn, the US legal system is not made to help you. So to me, sure, the police can be helpful, – sometimes, but the principal outsourcing is military, and if the only thing stopping you is violence, there is no reason to withhold that violence when accountability is unchecked by a larger entity.
I don’t want violence. Maybe it is my mindset of growing up always being bigger than all of my friends. People were afraid of me before they got to know me. I’m like the exact opposite IRL, but I don’t have to fear people from their physical threat in general. There is always someone bigger and all that, but I’m usually seen as not worth the effort and risk by others with that mindset. I was usually the kid that stepped into the middle of a fight and said you have to hit me first.
From some perspective, you might say I was acting as the larger outsourced entity in the aforementioned scenario, but then what was my motivational factor? In truth, it was kindness, empathy, and altruism. I saw a need, I recognized the opportunity, and I put myself in danger for the benefit of someone else and with no potential benefit to myself. It was simply the right thing to do from the moral high ground because I want to live in a world where “first, do no harm” is the fundamental motivational factor. I do not wish violence, or vengeance, or retribution on anyone. Two wrongs never make a right. I want stalemate, reasonably amicable confinement for safety. Even when I do not like an entity, I still want them to be well and unharmed.
To every force there is an equal and opposite counterpart. We have established that violence to gain advantage is justified, and we outsourced our violence to a much larger entity. Therefore by this fundamental basal ethos, we must expect that that larger entity shares our values.
Not really. As I mentioned, the outsourcing of violence is conditional - the larger entity can only expect compliance insofar as it seeks to address the concerns of those under its jurisdiction.
Only now, this entity has many opportunities where it has no larger rival. It must then use violence to gain advantage. This plays out as an expansionist policy because as weaker entities are encountered, this government must act in the exploitive interest of its constituency and destroy or incorporate the smaller entity’s resources…
How does that follow in any way?
That is what I see as far as I can gather from this abstraction of violence as a basal motivation underpinning all social engagement.
Violence here is not a ‘basal motivation’, violence is a constraint upon action. There is a distinct difference. You don’t buy an apple because you crave to use the coercive apparatus of the state against an innocent merchant. You are restrained in your options to purchase, rather than theft, by the coercive apparatus of the state; and on the other side of the coin, that same coercive apparatus forbids the merchant explicitly cheating you in this interaction.
If you think that cooperation is the law of the jungle between strangers, you really need to read up on early human societies.
I’m also super cynical about the legal system, with extensive first hand experience of how it is not in any way shape or form a justice system outside of fantasy fiction. If you do not have around $250k to burn, the US legal system is not made to help you.
Man, if you have ever done any research on alternative legal systems to modern, Western legal systems, it might become more apparent that there are far worse systems out there than our’s - even including the US, which is one of the poorer of the modern lot. And in societies without robust legal systems to regulate violence, things are even fucking worse than that.
Pointing out that the rich have outsized advantages in our system is true, and a necessary point to make as a general criticism of the system. Using it as some sort of proof that only the rich benefit from it is utter insanity.
From some perspective, you might say I was acting as the larger outsourced entity in the aforementioned scenario, but then what was my motivational factor? In truth, it was kindness, empathy, and altruism. I saw a need, I recognized the opportunity, and I put myself in danger for the benefit of someone else and with no potential benefit to myself.
Okay? How does that in any way contradict that the usage of violence as deterrent in societies?
Violence is not the basic force driving life and decisions. It’s just one of the basic factors that helps to structure our society (and all societies).
Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.
I get what you’re going for, but maybe work on the wording? Because my immediate thought was, alright, you lay on the ground and I’ll drop a nuclear bomb, and let’s see which was more destructive.
“Hitler killed five million [sic] Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs…It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany… As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions.”
-Mahatma Ghandi, 1946
Ghandi’s militant non-violence was blind to how actual historical justice movements succeed. It turns out that you actually need both violent and nonviolent resistance for any resistance to succeed. Sure, there was the Ghandi wing throwing the British out of India, but there was also a radical militant Hindu movement trying to throw the British out at gunpoint. The existence of this radical and violent side of the movement gave space for a nonviolent ‘moderate’ like Ghandi to come in and play the role of peacemaker. Without the violent resistance, the nonviolent resistance becomes branded as terrorists, and the state can come in and arrest/kill them all. It’s only the existence of an actual violent wing that prevents the peaceful moderates from being labeled as violent extremists.
Or look at MLK. He was peaceful and nonviolent, and they still called him a terrorist. But his message resonated with middle America as it contrasted to the explicitly violent movements like the Black Panthers, Malcolm X, etc. And the powers that be still killed him for it, regardless of his nonviolence.
Sorry, I just take a really dim view to the nonviolence of Ghandi.
You’re right that successful movements often have both violent and nonviolent wings - but the nonviolent components don’t succeed because of the violent ones. They succeed despite them. The research is pretty clear on this: nonviolent campaigns are actually more likely to achieve their goals than violent ones, and they’re more likely to lead to stable democratic outcomes.
Your claim that “without violent resistance, nonviolent resistance becomes branded as terrorists” is historically backwards. Nonviolent movements get labeled as extremist precisely when they’re associated with violence, not when they’re separate from it. The Civil Rights Movement’s greatest victories came when they maintained strict nonviolent discipline - Birmingham, Selma, the March on Washington. Every time violence entered the picture, it gave opponents ammunition to dismiss the entire movement.
And about Gandhi needing violent militants to succeed - this ignores how the independence movement actually worked. The violent revolutionary groups you’re thinking of (like the Hindustan Republican Association) were largely marginalized by the time of Gandhi’s major campaigns. His mass mobilization strategies worked because they were genuinely nonviolent and drew broad participation precisely because people knew they wouldn’t be asked to commit violence.
The “good cop/bad cop” theory sounds intuitive but doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. What actually makes nonviolent resistance effective is mass participation, strategic planning, and moral leverage - not the threat of violence lurking in the background.
Fascinating perspective. What of the elderly, children, and the disabled?
Violence is typically taken up by actors on their behalf. In an organized state this is, well, generally the state. In non-state activity, this tends to be their friends and family. In societies with weak or nonexistent centralized states, you see this in the form of honor societies being willing to have the young and healthy take up arms and feuds on behalf of offenses against elderly, children, or disabled who they have ties with.
I feel no desire to outsource offense, and that is probably what bugs me most. Your theory seems to justify expansion and to turn outward instead of inward. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying in this regard.
It’s not their theory. If someone explains basic theory of relativity to you, will you call it their theory?
What?
Well, if the true basal motivation driving life and decisions is the threat of violence, and we are merely outsourcing our violence to a larger entity, we have established a few fundamental constraints on our ethos. First, we believe violence is necessary. Second, violence is justified. And third, that the only things preventing us from using violence to gain advantage over others is the size of the threat.
To every force there is an equal and opposite counterpart. We have established that violence to gain advantage is justified, and we outsourced our violence to a much larger entity. Therefore by this fundamental basal ethos, we must expect that that larger entity shares our values. Only now, this entity has many opportunities where it has no larger rival. It must then use violence to gain advantage. This plays out as an expansionist policy because as weaker entities are encountered, this government must act in the exploitive interest of its constituency and destroy or incorporate the smaller entity’s resources… That is what I see as far as I can gather from this abstraction of violence as a basal motivation underpinning all social engagement.
It is not that I really disagree here, or anything like that. My intuition is sending up hazy red flags in a very half ass signal from an unexplored region of thought. I see what you’re trying to get at, and in a certain scope it makes sense, but I am concerned about the broader overall implications and where this leads. I think you’re primarily posing the idea as a different scope of violence, but I am focused on all types of violence, where invoking the word implies all potential scopes.
I’m also super cynical about the legal system, with extensive first hand experience of how it is not in any way shape or form a justice system outside of fantasy fiction. If you do not have around $250k to burn, the US legal system is not made to help you. So to me, sure, the police can be helpful, – sometimes, but the principal outsourcing is military, and if the only thing stopping you is violence, there is no reason to withhold that violence when accountability is unchecked by a larger entity.
I don’t want violence. Maybe it is my mindset of growing up always being bigger than all of my friends. People were afraid of me before they got to know me. I’m like the exact opposite IRL, but I don’t have to fear people from their physical threat in general. There is always someone bigger and all that, but I’m usually seen as not worth the effort and risk by others with that mindset. I was usually the kid that stepped into the middle of a fight and said you have to hit me first.
From some perspective, you might say I was acting as the larger outsourced entity in the aforementioned scenario, but then what was my motivational factor? In truth, it was kindness, empathy, and altruism. I saw a need, I recognized the opportunity, and I put myself in danger for the benefit of someone else and with no potential benefit to myself. It was simply the right thing to do from the moral high ground because I want to live in a world where “first, do no harm” is the fundamental motivational factor. I do not wish violence, or vengeance, or retribution on anyone. Two wrongs never make a right. I want stalemate, reasonably amicable confinement for safety. Even when I do not like an entity, I still want them to be well and unharmed.
Not really. As I mentioned, the outsourcing of violence is conditional - the larger entity can only expect compliance insofar as it seeks to address the concerns of those under its jurisdiction.
How does that follow in any way?
Violence here is not a ‘basal motivation’, violence is a constraint upon action. There is a distinct difference. You don’t buy an apple because you crave to use the coercive apparatus of the state against an innocent merchant. You are restrained in your options to purchase, rather than theft, by the coercive apparatus of the state; and on the other side of the coin, that same coercive apparatus forbids the merchant explicitly cheating you in this interaction.
If you think that cooperation is the law of the jungle between strangers, you really need to read up on early human societies.
Man, if you have ever done any research on alternative legal systems to modern, Western legal systems, it might become more apparent that there are far worse systems out there than our’s - even including the US, which is one of the poorer of the modern lot. And in societies without robust legal systems to regulate violence, things are even fucking worse than that.
Pointing out that the rich have outsized advantages in our system is true, and a necessary point to make as a general criticism of the system. Using it as some sort of proof that only the rich benefit from it is utter insanity.
Okay? How does that in any way contradict that the usage of violence as deterrent in societies?
Violence is not the basic force driving life and decisions. It’s just one of the basic factors that helps to structure our society (and all societies).
Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.
It’s not, though.
I get what you’re going for, but maybe work on the wording? Because my immediate thought was, alright, you lay on the ground and I’ll drop a nuclear bomb, and let’s see which was more destructive.
It’s a direct quote from Gandhi.
Gandhi was a very flawed man.
And Ghandi was a fucking idiot.
Well that sure is an opinion I haven’t heard before
-Mahatma Ghandi, 1946
Ghandi’s militant non-violence was blind to how actual historical justice movements succeed. It turns out that you actually need both violent and nonviolent resistance for any resistance to succeed. Sure, there was the Ghandi wing throwing the British out of India, but there was also a radical militant Hindu movement trying to throw the British out at gunpoint. The existence of this radical and violent side of the movement gave space for a nonviolent ‘moderate’ like Ghandi to come in and play the role of peacemaker. Without the violent resistance, the nonviolent resistance becomes branded as terrorists, and the state can come in and arrest/kill them all. It’s only the existence of an actual violent wing that prevents the peaceful moderates from being labeled as violent extremists.
Or look at MLK. He was peaceful and nonviolent, and they still called him a terrorist. But his message resonated with middle America as it contrasted to the explicitly violent movements like the Black Panthers, Malcolm X, etc. And the powers that be still killed him for it, regardless of his nonviolence.
Sorry, I just take a really dim view to the nonviolence of Ghandi.
You have the causality backwards.
You’re right that successful movements often have both violent and nonviolent wings - but the nonviolent components don’t succeed because of the violent ones. They succeed despite them. The research is pretty clear on this: nonviolent campaigns are actually more likely to achieve their goals than violent ones, and they’re more likely to lead to stable democratic outcomes.
Your claim that “without violent resistance, nonviolent resistance becomes branded as terrorists” is historically backwards. Nonviolent movements get labeled as extremist precisely when they’re associated with violence, not when they’re separate from it. The Civil Rights Movement’s greatest victories came when they maintained strict nonviolent discipline - Birmingham, Selma, the March on Washington. Every time violence entered the picture, it gave opponents ammunition to dismiss the entire movement.
And about Gandhi needing violent militants to succeed - this ignores how the independence movement actually worked. The violent revolutionary groups you’re thinking of (like the Hindustan Republican Association) were largely marginalized by the time of Gandhi’s major campaigns. His mass mobilization strategies worked because they were genuinely nonviolent and drew broad participation precisely because people knew they wouldn’t be asked to commit violence.
The “good cop/bad cop” theory sounds intuitive but doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. What actually makes nonviolent resistance effective is mass participation, strategic planning, and moral leverage - not the threat of violence lurking in the background.