Pacifist Rebellion Versus Violent Resistance.

Within anarchist circles there is a disagreement in how to resist state government powers.

The pacifists believe in ‘peaceful’ protests and nonviolent resistance whereas the violent rebels view violence as the only means to oppose the state in overthrowing.

I created this thread for people to argue both sides of belief.

In the information age I would suggest that the need for mass peaceful demonstration has been overcome. You can now reach more people with a 15 minute youtube video that says exactly what you want it to say than you can by being a blurry sign-waver on the news who will invariably misrepresent your beliefs.

That is not to say I think peaceful protest is pointless, just that its long-established success as a means of drawing attention has been surpassed by better methods. Protest can still be used for other things, and I do think that the Occupy movement (for all it’s many, many failings) could evolve into a means of taking back control of social services usually dominated by the increasingly bankrupt state. They could all be run on a localised, charitable model and would be able to deliver much the same services far more efficiently and effectively.

My pacifism basically comes down to this - we may have numbers on our side, but they’ve got the weapons, and if it comes down to it they will use them against us. Your poorly-designed molotovs cocktails are no match for depleted uranium. It’s a flaming rod of burning heavy metal. Nothing survives that. Except the bloody cockroaches.

What doesn’t kill their Master, makes them stronger.

There are only 2 things a socialist regime can’t survive.

  1. A greater socialist regime.
  2. Victory.

We have numbers on our side?!?!?

Tell me, how many anarchists do you personally know?

I think anarchists don’t have the capacity for any kind of meaningful action yet, but whatever window opens up I’ll stand behind.

For all their advanced weaponry they still have problems going against a couple of armed camel lackeys in Afghanistan. At any rate in urban guerilla warfare there is the ability to blend within the civilian populace when it in resistance cells.

I despise pacifism. It’s like a bunch of docile sheep allowing themselves get sheered or slaughtered.

Nature is all about struggle and fighting for survival.

You must fight for your independence.

If you have an enemy you must strike and cut them down.

True. When chaos comes however you will have a variety of ideological factions fighting for power. It happens with any sort of civil war or collapsed civilization.

The rules are always the same. Only the most ruthless prevail.

Well, if I were to personally meet you, that would make… emm… one.
And I suspect after a few short conversations, we would be back to zero.

One of the first being, “Know thine enemy.”
After which, only after which, you might reconsider your strategies.

I know who my enemy is. Death before surrender.


I mean ‘we’ as in the people rather than the state, not ‘we’ as in anarchists.

The people rather than the st-

Oh I get it, you’re a communist.

  1. No one wins a war in Afghanistan. On the streets of Baltimore or Manchester it’s a very different situation.
  2. I don’t think they really are struggling in Afghanistan, they’re probably deliberately failing so as to eat up even more of that excess industrial capacity that could be going to food production or something else that would benefit large numbers of people. That’s obviously the last thing they want, so they use war to eat it up instead. Making tanks just to roll them off the edge of aircraft carriers and all that.

Failed in Northern Ireland, no reason to think it’ll work elsewhere. The cell structure is redundant as an intelligence technique, the CIA infiltrated every part of Al Qaeda, MI5 infiltrated every part of the IRA. It isn’t a big problem for them.

As per usual, the reason you give for despising something is about the people advocating it, rather than any failure with the idea or strategy itself. Grow up.

If you’re a Darwinist. I’m not.

Fighting the state head on, particularly in the US, is the dumbest idea in the world. It’s like you or me getting into the ring with some 250 pound professional boxer with diamond plated knuckle studs.

Indeed, if you had bothered to read any of the guerilla training manuals I suggested on your silly thread about molotov cocktails you’d realise they all advance the notion found in The Art of War - attack your enemy where they are weakest, not where they are strongest. For example, with the coming drone war there’s no point trying to shoot them down, because even if you manage it they’ll just replace it with another. Better to try to hack into the drone control system and fly them into the Pentagon. Or just crash them into the sea, if you’re not into killing US military personnel.


No. ‘People’ is not an exclusively communist term, no matter how much you yanks might be terrified of anything that isn’t Coca Cola Capitalism.

Cualquier vaina Venezolano, papasito.

I thought you had read books?

Any war can be lost or won anywhere, Afghanistan isn’t some magical land where a war can’t be won, Alexander won.

Whos they? Also What? That makes not sense other than trying to demonize your opposition.

I don’t think thats what he’s advocating.

That would be the more intellegent thing to do, but the military is well aware of this possibilty and has taken measures to oppose it , or at least limit the damage a hacker could do.

I think drones are cowardly anyhow, then again so is planting roadside bombs and hiding behind women and children so…

Pacfism works if you have the sympathy of the people or the leaders, if you don’t then it is extremely ineffectual.

Then again once you begin armed resistance you’re fair game. Any sympathies the populace might of had for you go largely out the window, except for those as radical as to join your cause.

I like radicals. They make great fighters and are loyal to their cause.

Your world is being run by cowardly serpents in the dark with mechanisms and machines.