Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Which brings us to another debate, raging in activist circles - The Violence/Non-Violence debate:
The ethos under which this blog was set up was to resist the FIT teams by whatever means people feel are necessary. These could be very non violent and legal or very militant and illegal.

Whilst this obviously leads to a discussion of tactics, and for some this may be useful, it may be good to keep this blog dedicated to information, experiences and ideas for action without getting bogged down in a theoretical debate.

However I realise there are people who want to have this discussion so have set up another blog www.violencedebate.blogspot.com.

This is only a suggestion - this blog is an open space. But if people think it'd be helpful to continue the theoretical debate in another space, then the option is there.

This debate is also raging here: Urban75 community forum
Both examples you cite originated from a similar stimulus, which was of violence done unto them, violence as a response to violence. The "fightback" that you advocate has in fact little in common with those examples, being more akin to a philosophy of pre-emptive strike, or of a physical response to economic oppression.

We get quite sick of people who tell the oppressed that violence is a viable solution while we exist inside a system that sees our oppressors holding all the aces. Capitalism can't be eliminated through the destruction of people, only through the destruction of the ideas and ideologies that support it.

No comments: