What Do Anarchists Think About Violence? | Anarchism 101 

"I don't believe in any kind of non-violence. I believe it's your right to be non-violent when your enemies are on violent. But when you're dealing with an enemy that doesn't know what non-violence is, then as far as I'm concerned you're wasting your time" - Malcolm X

*Warning: Shameless self-Promotion* Our channel has a playlist covering Nonviolence.

Pacificism logic is always aimed at the oppressed and never the oppressors. On the other hand, I would argue that it is mostly (not morally) tactically harmful as you are never going to convince someone of your ideas through violence, given that they're not already on your side. The deployment of violence is a very calculated thing, you have to be aware of what the numbers are on your side ideologically. The state can get away with violence not for its own stake, but because the majority of us legitimate them.

brilliantly said! this is largely my view of violence also. Simon Springer wrote a piece on anarchism as the ethos of peace (I appreciated how he included carnism as a form of 'archy') in War and Pieces, but I'm not sure how his thinking goes about revolution. appreciated this

'The revolutionary fight isn't what the prolerariat aims for, but rather is imposed by the burgeoisie. The people then have two alternatives from which to choose: to submit or to combat.' - Fidel Castro

positions of power do not give up willingly.

Brilliant. My idea of violence is pretty much on the same level as Malatesta.

Wow, a very powerful quote: "We neither seek to impose anything by force nor do we wish to submit to a violent imposition. We intend to use force against government, because it is by force that we are kept in subjection by government. We intend to expropriate the owners of property because it is by force that they withhold the raw materials and wealth, which is the fruit of human labour, and use it to oblige others to work in their interest. We shall resist with force whoever would wish by force, to retain or regain the means to impose his will and exploit the labour of others. (Malatesta 2015, 47)"

The real concern is violence, even if wielded initially against the oppressors, will eventually come back to haunt the oppressed as well. Once the perpetuators realise how useful and powerful violence could be. That is essentially what happened to the worse examples of Bolshevism/Marxism-Leninism.

Really enjoying your videos.

Thank you for this, keep up your amazing work, I love all your videos

Great video! Thank you for your work

One can have one of three general view towards violence. Violence is good, violence is neutral, violence is bad. I would say these views actually correlate to politics. Right-wingers, and especially fascists, have the first view. Centrists (liberals, socdems, and i would put bolshies here, too, bc theyre state-capitalists) have the second view, viewing it as a simple instrument, the same way they look at hierarchy. Leftists/ libertarians ought to have the third view. I need to note right away that one can have the third view without being a pacifist. The lack of nuance and popularity of being driven by machoist impulses among the libertarians/leftists is worrying, ive even seen sadistic sentiment being expressed several times, and it being positively accepted by others. Ideally all libertarians should be pacifists (bc libertarianism is anti-authoritarianism, and it entails a negative view towards violence, bc violence is a type of hierarchical authority). Thats ideally speaking, but practically speaking, bc oppression exists, we shouldnt be pacifists now- if we can. Some people, due to their physical and/or mental making, cant or would have a very hard time using violence, and thats ok, those of us who arent like that should use it sometimes, ie we shoudnt be pacifist. This follows from this view, as libertarians we are against violence, which means we should strive to reduce it, and pacifism will not always be the way to reduce it, we need to at times use violence against the ruling class and those who enforce its rule. But we must, if we are to be libertarians, express the mentioned negative view towards violence not just in words but also in the practice. Do we use violence only for defense and emancipation; do we use it rashly or after we try other means if we can try them; do we use it prudently; do we stive to use only necessary violence, so do we use a milder instead of a more dangerous type, do we use lower instead of higher intensity; and in the end, do we have a mental disposition towards our own practicing of violence which is negative, which can been seen while practicing it, and when talking about, are we, in ourselves personally and ourselves as a movement, building up a temperament and inclinations which see violence as negative, and not neutral, or worse, as something positive.

If anyone is interested in social movements and violence contra non-violence, you should read Andreas Malm's book How to Blow up a Pipeline in which he talks about how non-violent movements had violent flanks that would cause chaos and violence so that the non-violent movements looked more moderate and acceptable.

In my culture we have a saying, "if someone gives you hate give that hatred back." - Akan. The Gullah Wars, I'm sure of it, was deeply influenced by this saying. And it's no wonder why Enslaved Africans established 'anarchists' communities in Florida. The Black Radical Tradition and Anarchism have always overlapped.

What's your opinion on Tolstoy and his principal of "non-resistance to evil". I know calling him an anarchist is somewhat anachronistic, but he does have a considerable influence on modern christian anarchist/anarchist pacifist movements.I personally agree with Malatesta for the most part, but Tolstoy has some very interesting points that can't be simply dismissed. Plus, I also just love Tolstoy in general. Although I love Malatesta as well, so now that I think of it I'm rather conflicted.

All Power To The People!

Malatesta is one of my favorite anarchist writer.

Thank you. This perfectly encapsulates the issues I had with some actions taken during protests that I agreed with the aims of but couldn’t justify the means.

"La violence défensive peut quelque fois paralyser une violence offensive. Mais ne la considérez-vous pas comme une défaite ? Elle vous force à descendre sur le terrain de l’adversaire, à adopter ses méthodes et ses moyens. Utile quelque fois contre telle violence déterminée, elle ne saurait détruire le principe même de la violence et diminuer la violence en général !" -Han Ryner

hey Zoe, what is your definition of the state? there is a lot of confusion around it, i wanna hear your view

This, this, this! Best for PR, as well as being morally correct.

Hi, thanks for this, I'd love to read the text you cite about where Malatesta accepts that a revolution would cause suffering, but argues this would be less suffering than what we endure now. Can you point us to it, please? thanks!

This is exactly what Camus says about rebellion

Would you mind if I downloaded your video and uploaded it on Facebook?

@anarchopac Is there any particular work you'd recommend from Malatesta? And any other Anarcho-pacifist writers you'd recommend?

I would say I’m about 75% anarcho pacifist, as I think violence should be a rare thing for later on in the revolution (unless you are explicitly being attacked by someone ofc, we ain’t liberal pushovers)... I feel like I slightly disagree with Malatesta... I feel like more importantly, before we do anything big, we need to get the normies and conservatives on our side via making spontaneous speeches in towns squares, studying debate tactics and psychological manipulation/persuasion as well as theory, doing presentations, writing modern, new, subtlety anarchist, and easily accessible books (because I don’t think a normie would just stumble upon Kropotkin or something explicitly anarchist and actually read it) for normies to stumble upon and convert to anarchism, somehow getting on interviews and news shows (I have a feelin we can be the ones to finally defeat Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro)... as for what type of violence used, anything that does it’s job, but does as little collateral damage to others who are comrades, (or could end up as comrades, or are neutral) as possible, and it would be extremely rare, only for the absolute worst of the worst and most powerful of the powerful (A billionaire instead of a small business for example, or a tyrannical general instead of its reluctant and moral army (unless you are actively being attacked by them))... now to me, property destruction is not violent unless you use something that could spread to a human(fire), or destroy a property with innocent humans and animals in it in a way that could kill them (because obviously damage to innocent people could occur, which is unnecessary violence), but even property destruction you have to be careful with, as normies won’t be on our side as much if we just go out, destroy shit, and don’t explain ourselves, and don’t make too much of a spectacle of it... as for the type of property destruction I would utilize most, it would be destroying equipment (for building pipelines or destroying a forest), pouring sugar on concrete if something like a new prison is being built, minor shoplifting of big corporate businesses, dismantling anti homeless architecture, etc)... for now however, I think it is a war of the words rn, and with growing discomfort of capitalism and authority, and TONS of liberals becoming stranded baby leftists and Bernie Bros, as well as an economic crash, a virus, and police brutality pissing people off.... This modern age is prime time for our movement to grow exponentially... sieze the day ( actually decade but whatever) like you sieze the means!!!

Based

Can the success of any "peaceful" movement in reforming the state be attributed to the potential for violence if it does NOT reform? Gay marriage was legalized in the US recently. It was getting ridiculous. But how much potential for violence was there and how much longer could things have gone on the way they did?

That which is society is so angering that the only response can be one of unmitigated aggression. Nihil.

So anarchopac. Am I to guess this was made in response to the recent events in America? What country are you based out of? I find it taxing to find any anarchists here. Even more so to find any who are open for debate and boots on ground organizing in a peaceful manner.

2:30 4:20 8:10 9:31

Power only comes from violence, and violence is the only power of a person, physical violence is the simplest one and what the people have, a violent society is a fairer society, but I rather not get hurt, so I will use violence to prevent it

So basically, Malatesta is a relative pacifist, not an absolute pacifist. I agree 👍 with Malatesta's relative pacifism.

What's your thought on organizing a workers' militia?

Can we still do things like boxing,mma etc?😋

Judging from what I see, they appear to be all for it...

0:25 with violence.

So you aren't a pacifist? What does your name Anarchopac mean than?

We really need to stop pretending that nonviolent coercion doesn't exist as an option.

Malatesta's logic here seems basically utilitarian.

I think anarchism and communism are pretty naive ideologies, but I still find this interesting.