I really think a lot of you should read the gelderloos book. if you want to get all anal about copyright laws then buy it. it's like 7$ anyways, but its a fantastic read.

Oh i lost a bit, where is stated that the bigger the organisation the more room for corruption. Humans tend to find the holes and take advantage of the systems in which they find themselves.

Not everyone will buy into the same system, and so things will never be as simple as we would like to imagine in these nice hypohetical discussions.

"Palestinians?"

Palestinians have been using violence for seventy years, and every day there are more dead Palestinians and less land to put them in than the day before. Violence, while justified, has obviously not been productive. I'm not suggesting that if Palestinians all started singing Kumbaya and put flowers in the barrels of Israeli machineguns that everything would be wonderful - it wouldn't. Unfortunately, when a horde of heavily armed people from another continent with a hunger for new land drop anchor off the coast of your quiet little village, you're generally screwed no matter what you do.

(I'm not as familiar with the situations of the other groups you've mentioned, but I suspect my remarks will apply similarly to them)

I suppose my point is that many evils in this world are inevitable and it is pointless to resist them with force. Maybe it's my 'privilege' talking, but sometimes the least of all evils is simply to submit, take what life gives you, and find solace in the fact that your oppressor is building up a lot of bad karma.

@Biddis: the fact is violence breeds violence - the opposite is not neccesarily true, pacifism doesn't breed pacifism. It takes a much longer time to build up trust, and once betrayed a person takes longer to build up that trust again, so once they see violence as a means for protection it is hard to convince anyone otherwise.

I do see peace-keeping missions being useful and i would not go so far of to leave myself open for a stab. (it's ok in a game to take that sort of risk, but in real life i can die and am not able to simply start a new game...) I believe in self-defence, and perhaps even training and sport to keep individuals capable of defending themselves (some form of martial arts training) though i would also argue for individuals to be able to argue and debate with the same skill (and banning professional lawyers)

Were those skills things which also had a place in our society for making political and economic decisions i think we might be better off. (even if that means making decisions on a different, more local, scale - this might be the best way to offset the corruption and abuse of power with which sic has such issue) - in some things i believe the division of labour is fundamentally flawed.

"I suppose my point is that many evils in this world are inevitable and it is pointless to resist them with force. Maybe it's my 'privilege' talking, but sometimes the least of all evils is simply to submit, take what life gives you, and find solace in the fact that your oppressor is building up a lot of bad karma."

it is your privilege. So you're saying the africans should have crossed the middle passage in slave ships while a smile and a singing of 'we shall overcome'? You're saying that Native Americans should not have resisted their own genocide at the hands of whites, but just let their children be killed, comfortable in the fact that the whites were "bad"? Rape victims should just grit their teeth and accept their fate, knowing that by not resisting, they are helping to prevent future rapes? what a wonderful fantasy you live in.

If the rapist wants to prevent future rapes, maybe she should whip out her pocket knife and fucking stab her attacker. that will stop him. And she is not somehow becoming "as bad as him" by defending herself. If every time whites got 20 or 30 slaves, they revolted and killed a bunch of them, maybe that would discourage them from taking slaves. If the native americans would have just laid down their arms and not fought off the whites, they would somehow be better off? that by being peaceful they qould have stopped the extermination of their race? if not one white was ever killed in an attack on the natives, they would just be emboldened. uif every time they attack they lose half their men, maybr they wont attack as much.

This view shows me that you have never experienced violence in your life to any great degree, thus your privilege.

@flashman - I'm a little late entering this game, but theft is not inherently violent. Legally, theft is not a violent crime. It only gets charged as a violent crime if a weapon is used or property is destroyed. If I leave my door unlocked or someone figures out my garage passcode and they clean me out, it isn't a violent crime. If, however, they bust out a window or kick in the door to get in, then it becomes B&E and *is* a violent crime.

Tolstoy, I would really appreciate a response to my post. if that is not the point you were making, then I would appreciate a clarification of it.

and sic, feel free to ignore my posts; i think here my gaols diametrically oppose yours, but if you can't argue in favour of your philosophy feel free to let mine be heard as supported by the majority. (although i admit the corruption of any large powerful group a problem which needs reform, and that some power should be distributed to the individual - not having a representative democracy, where those chosen to represent us act as though they have the power to read our minds and always act as we would like - but having a more local distributive democracy, where decisions are made on a local level and all individuals are invited to take part in debate, as in local town meetings - with modern technology it is even possible to facilitate global discussions and decision making which involves the individual.)

Sicarius,

1) Slave revolts and other acts of violence often occurred in the US. The revolts were bloody and gruesome affairs, and the slave rebels were generally fairly indiscriminate about the whites they killed - many of them were not slave owners or connected to slavery; they were just 'priviledged' white people trying to get by in life. As for the rebels themselves, they always faced the same fate - death. Oftentimes, their families who took no part in the uprising were put to death as well as a deterrent. For all that violence and death, what was accomplished? Nothing. Slavery never stopped or slowed down because of violence by rebellious slaves. In the northern states, slavery was ended peacefully by abolitionists in the late 18th/early 19th centuries by persuading others of the righteousness of their cause.
2) Native Americans did resist, and guess what? They were still by and large exterminated. Custer and the 7th Cavalry were wiped out to a man (almost), but this didn't make Sheridan and his army stop and think "hey, maybe we should just leave these 'injuns alone". It merely doubled their resolve and made them even more bloodthirsty than they already were.
3) As for women fending off rapists, I have no problem with that; she has a very good chance of success if she is armed and reasonably trained in self defense (as I would recommend to all the ladies here).

I'm not opposed to violence as a matter of course. I'm opposed to it when it is not useful. I think nothing less of those who resort to violence in defense of their lives, homes, and property in desperate struggle against tyranny and oppression. But when the cause is lost and hopeless and the choice is between fighting to a pointless death or surviving to live some kind of life that might still be rewarding in some way for you or others, I think the latter is the better choice.

As for all this "privilege" crap, this 'cracker' grew up in a lower-class neighborhood that was about 90-95% non-white. I learned plenty about violence and 'privilege' growing up; at my high school, for instance, the day before Christmas vacation was called "Bloody White Christmas" and most white students didn't dare show up. I saw my share of violence and even participated in some of it. As for State violence, while I haven't yet been subjected to it in an overt physical form, I've certainly come close a few times (I have no doubt some 'roid raging cops would've beat me to a pulp and thrown me in jail last year if I hadn't been in a bank with surveillance cameras everywhere). And I know plenty of 'privileged' people who have been victimized by State violence, up to and including murder. So don't presume I know nothing about it, and don't dare suggest I have some kind of special 'privilege' shield that protects me in life like some fairy godmother.

[end rant]

You're actually suggesting that one should not endeavor to resist tyranny of the worst kind, complete cultural subjugation, and physical extermination on a massive scale? Sure slaves and indigenous americans were stilled killed while resisting, but not resisting at all certainly didnt slow their oppression!

Gee thats touching you grew up in the ghetto. me too. so did lots of people. But that doesnt erase your privilege. you're not a member of a racial group thats being actively exterminated right now. thats a huge privilege! being pushed around in high school because you're the 'white boy' probably isnt fun, but you're not a palestinian, or a native american, or any of the other groups who are literally at this minute being systematically destroyed as a people. You admit yourself that you have never physically been on the receiving end of state violence. So having experienced that, especially on a daily basis like some oppressed groups, you have absolutely no place from which to say these groups should take the violence they receive, laying down. Just like the woman being raped should fight back, so should oppressed peoples rise against their oppressors, in any way that they, as the victims, feel is appropriate. If the palestinians or lebanese who are constant victims of israeli military attacks, feel thats its necessary to pick up guns and resist that oppression, just like say leonard peltier and the rest of AIM did in the 70's, you have no point of reference from which to give them any kind of moralistic advice. It's easy to 'love thy enemy' when they are not actually YOUR enemy. It's real easy to tell the navajo's (dine) for instance, to 'turn the other cheek' when its not your churces the bia burns down, or your sheep the fbi comes to steal in the middle of the night.
So yeah, you have a 'privilege shield'. I mean, a t-shirt is as good as a bulletproof vest if you know no one will be shooting at you.
What next, you gonna say the jews who participated in the warsaw ghetto uprising shouldn't have picked up guns, that they shouldnt have just gone peacefully to the nazi camps?

There are no racial groups being actively exterminated in the United States of America right now.

My point doesn't seem to be registering. I'm not saying that oppressed people everywhere need to just 'lay down and take it'. I'm saying that the benefits and probable success of violent resistance need to be weighed and considered against the costs. I'll respond in more detail later - I have to get some work done right now.

Ok well that I can certainly understand a lot more clearly then what I thought you were suggesting. But dont forget, the jews who fought in the warsaw ghetto uprising, though they all died, had a better life expectancy than the jews who did nothing to resist.

And the Polish Jews who built a home and defended it in Bielski forest had a great survival rate compared to the pacifist ones in Krakow.

absolutely. So even when the cause is 'hopeless' being pacifistic doesnt necessarily help you at all

there are no jews which i'm aware of who are being exterminated in Europe today.

There are some minorities in places who suffer violence at the hands of other groups, (i saw a report of a man in england who was beaten to death) and as i've said before i believe in self-defence. You should do your best to stay alive, that doesn't mean i think you should go out and kill all the other humans who are using up the oxygen which you need to live. Or go out and kill those whose religion/lack thereof/personal choices threaten your 'way of life'.

As for hopeless causes apart from being completely irrelevant to daily life, if i am in a hopeless situation i will likely fight it to the end, my pig-headedness will not let me give up no matter what; that said if i was in a situation where i had time to think about it, and wasn't in immanent danger but 10% definitely hopeless, i would rather go out peacefully. I believe in a cause, as righteously as any religious adherent, and pacificism is worthwhile, and as you pointed out it is by our passive inaction that we grant the state power. We must be careful and involved in the states actions to ensure that power is not abused.

who suggested jews are being killed by genocide in the present day?

if i recall correctly it was Oliver Cromwell.

I haven't had a chance to read through everything above; but, if nothing else, I must thank Tolstoy for the analogies of a million Sicarii and Anarchotopia. Don't know why, but that had me laughing out loud. It's like an anarchistic Ragnarok.

That being said, without reading through all of what appear to be some very good posts, I believe that there are situations where violence may be necessary, but it should always be the last option and (as many have touched on), the consequences/rationale must be justified and/or understood. There is one big problem with that though; usually mankind is very subjective and creative when justifying violence. I think most individual people are non-violent, but would kill if necessary to protect their families or loved ones if their lives were threatened. I think it gets more complicated when you begin to expand that to larger groups.

I've never said that oppressed people have no moral right to violently resist their oppressors. I think the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto were certainly morally justified in taking up arms, and had I been in their shoes I can't say I wouldn't've done the same. My question is what did they accomplish? Nearly all of them died, except for a handful who managed to escape the ghetto - but those too, were mostly all killed during the Warsaw Uprising a year later. They killed a handful of rear-area SS troops and created a moving, legendary, and fatalistic tale of resistence in the face of certain death that resulted in a mediocre Made for TV movie in the late '90s. What else?

It's not at all true that Jews who fought had better survival rates than Jews that didn't. Hundreds of thousands (and possibly millions) of Jews survived the Holocaust without picking up a gun. Many escaped to neighboring countries. Many moved to another village, changed their name, and didn't mention their Jewish ancestry. Some were saved by war profiteers (there was a black & white movie made about one such story awhile back you may've heard of). Some were even protected by the head of German Military Intelligence (true story!). Many of them survived in the concentration camps. How many of them, if put to the choice of doing it over again, would've chosen a certain and futile death in armed resistance or the survival they had and the life they were able to live after the war? Do you really think the world would be a better place today if every Jew in Nazi-occupied Europe had gone to the barricades and thrown himself at the Nazi war machine? Should Anne Frank have put down her diary, picked up an antique revolver and a molotov and charged the nearest checkpoint (some of the resistance fighters in the Warsaw ghetto uprising were likewise in their early teens)?

It is true that some Jews were able to fight and live to tell about it, but those are rare tales indeed. As for the Bielski partisans, they weren't exactly saints (they spent most of their time raiding nearby villages and fighting other partisan groups) and many of them met their end when the Soviets came rolling in (one brother if I remember correctly was executed by the NKVD).

Sicarius, as for your example of the Navajos having their churches burned down and livestock stolen, what do you suggest as a solution? Should BIA and FBI agents be shot on sight? Should the Secretary of the Interior be assassinated? Will slashing their tires and vandalizing their vehicles fix the problem? I am in complete agreement that writing a sternly worded letter to my congressman is a sick joke. But please tell me how violence against a government with over a million men under arms, all sorts of high-tech killing gadgets, the support of most of the public, and a subservient MSM is going to be productive.

I am genuinely sympathetic and interested in hearing your solution, but if you don't want to go into detail because Big Brother is watching, that's cool.

And on the subject of 'privilege':

I have a close friend who was raped by a law enforcement officer. I know a couple whose business was destroyed and they had to leave the state because they refused to pay protection money to the local ring of corrupt cops. I know a man whose father was murdered and robbed by professional police informants/criminals in retaliation for his investigation of corruption in local law enforcement. I know another who spent 18 months in jail for pissing off the chair of the County Board of Supervisors at a public meeting. I could go on and on. Hell, even the son of ultra-conservative redheaded former congressman Bob Dornan had to flee California last year in fear for his family's safety last year after he put a pedophile cop under citizen's arrest for taking pictures of the private areas of very young girls (the pedophile policeman was allowed to retire gracefully and is enjoying his luxurious pension as you read this).

All these people are (or were) white. The Magical White Privilege Fairy did not protect them. When you say white people are never targets and never have to worry about state violence, you mock these people and their losses. The notion of "White pivilege" is every bit as racist as any other racial stereotype, and holding to it makes you not very much different from a white-hooded Klansman in my book. (It's also rather ironic that you're telling me I don't know what I'm talking about because I'm 'privileged', while you're quoting someone who from the look of him is a beneficiary of the same 'privilege', and whose book's most prominent endorser (Ward Churchill) is *also* blessed by the privilege fairy.)

there's nothing wrong with killing people (in my opinion from the "moral perspective), absolute morals fall flat on their ass(es). therefore, i can't realy be a pacifist although I'm not too inclined to go out and pick fights. just because something isn't believed to be wrong doesn't mean it's smart or convenient. however, it is so often inconvenient to kill someone, which is why i use violence sparingly.

You can't think of any situations where having white skin is a benefit? what a wonderful color blind fantasy you live in.

Okay, I confess it. Having white skin has *lots* of benefits, a closely guarded secret which investigative journalist Eddie Murphy managed to uncover a few years ago:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/10356/saturday-night-live-white-like-me