@Cowicide, it seems like you’re very angry, so I’ve been hesitant to respond because I don’t want to fan the flames of a non-productive argument. But since you sparked a larger discussion, I do want to contribute some thoughts. Please understand nothing I’m writing is intended in a hostile way.
This post will address a single question:
What is violence?
It’s an important question. Is shoving someone violent? Is breaking a police station window violent? Is stealing violent? How about allowing someone to starve or suffer in poverty?
There are many kinds of terrible harm that we don’t usually recognize as “violent”, but probably should. Coincidentally, they’re the kinds of harm which are inflicted through legitimate structures like the government and economy. Here I’m talking about things like poverty, denial of healthcare, imprisonment, etc.
If we look at violence this way, it shows that really, our entire society rests on a bedrock of violence. Our economy produces violence, our government perpetrates more violence than any other force in the world. Our culture reinforces patterns of violence against marginalized people. And since we are all active participants in this society, we are also participants in violence. Maybe we don’t want to be, but by working hard, paying our taxes, and generally keeping society going smoothly, we are helping society’s engines of violence continue.
I believe that we should be doing whatever is necessary to reduce as much harm to people as we can. I believe that allowing people to suffer harm through inaction - or ineffective action - is just as violent and wrong as causing that harm directly.
So failing to prevent the harm caused by structural violence is morally equivalent to perpetrating that violence ourselves. Because really, it doesn’t matter the technical reason someone dies, the bottom line is they’re dead and we could’ve prevented it.
Recognizing this helps me realize that violence isn’t a black and white issue. None of our hands are clean, nor can they be. And really, it’s not about our individual hands anyway. I don’t care whether you or I specifically can make a claim to being “violent” or “non-violent”, I care whether our society overall is causing harm to people.
By moving beyond a simplistic doctrine of purity, we can look at this as a pragmatic question: What actions will most effectively reduce overall harm in our society? Whatever those actions are, I’m for them. Those who would ask us to restrict our actions to an approved list of “non-violent” tactics are restricting our options. Sometimes, that ends up meaning advocating for less effective action, asking us to be less effective at stopping the systemic violence. And again, failing to effectively stop it is morally equivalent to committing that violence ourselves.
Anyway, all that is to explain that I’m not in any way opposed to “peaceful” actions, I’m opposed to ineffective actions. If collecting petition signatures is effective, I’m for it. If rioting is ineffective, I’m against it. But when it is effective, I absolutely support it, and I think we all have a moral obligation to. Because again, when we oppose effective efforts to reduce structural violence in our society, we might as well be perpetrating that violence ourselves.
