Sudden Mensus Cramp At 40 Weeks

Faced with violence against the pacifism, anarchism

face of violence, facing the Pacific , anarchism

In the current context of increasing oppression of peoples by capitalism, where the word "anarchy" is again approximated to that of "violence" by the henchmen of power to disqualify worthy revolts that broke out here and there in the world, it seems appropriate to undertake another reflection on violence.

Violence is a social relation, since it always involves a perpetrator and an assault, an assault on the integrity of third-physically or morally. It is a report brutal domination between people. But all people with different opinions, not occupying the same position in society, will not have the same idea of what violence is and what is not (eg what is the legitimate violence). In this sense, the violence is also, despite his cruelty, a relative concept. What some call " violence "is not for everyone. This may be legitimate for some, illegitimate for others.

[...] the specificity of the class struggle is precisely by the ignorance of this state of conflict in a real important part of the dominated class. My class does not feel dominated mostly not at war. If it were, it would sweep their oppressors without penalty.

[...] The rejection of violence does not accept violence on self and others without responding. It means accepting the violence, even condone, since the resignation is its foundation ! Is this really the "violent", when dialogue fails or can not cope with violence, to refuse to turn the other cheek, not to let violence when witnessing an assault on oneself or others? use force to prevent violence, is not it rather a consistent refusal of violence, a radical form of non-violence?

[...] Violence perpetrated and does not recur, that is not installed as a mode of social relationship, if one is resigned, if it is tolerated, including pacifism. This implies

also socially constructed and hence politically, a radical alternative, revolutionary, social violence. For this, it would be wise to stop endorsing the idea of violence, relaying word of power created to discredit us.

Prefer the idea of self-defense is not a quarrel of words, but a substantive policy difference on the means and thus ends.

[...] There is a real difference between a boss kill in the name of revolutionary truth and defend themselves by force if necessary, attacks the thugs and cops, to hold a workshop held and self-managed, whose production is debated, and made available to the company.

[...] We do not want the class struggle, we suffer. We want a classless society or state.

But class warfare is here to end it, do not hide it, but see it. Cease to consent, we stand up, resist, defend ourselves vigorously against violence and force of this global system. If it seems wise, both ethically and strategically, not to claim "violence", they seems essential to stop the structural violence of power, and for that to build a true relationship of social forces, we resolutely holding on ways to organize and fight anti-authoritarian.

John Rackham (group Black Lodge AF), the World No. 1622 Libertarian