Violence In Response To Repression

Morning everyone,

I've been trying to devise my personal position on whether violence is acceptable or not and may have finally come up with something I feel happy with.

This won't be exactly a radical innovation in the violence vs pacifism debate but over time my position has flipped from accepting violence as a weapon against oppression, to complete pacifism and back again any number of time.

Firstly I'll detail the flaw I see in extremes of both positions, then speak about my own ideas.

Violence as a reaction on its own, without any other acts supporting it, is not an adequate solution to an oppressive regime. For one thing, it runs the risk of turning into the thing it seeks to end by relying purely on force to achieve its ends. Furthermore, many will be alienated by this approach and the struggle risks turning into a minority group fight instead of the majority revolution it should be. The last point against pure violence is that it is unlikely to be the leaders of the oppression who are injured or killed, much more probable is the ordinary police, soldiers and other 'instruments', thus driving a wedge against co-operation between the revolutionaries and workers in those divisions. This would be a huge setback to any liberation movement and ensure violence creating more violence as the possibility of peaceful change is lost by inciting the oppressor's tools to fight against the movement instead of joining it.

Now pacifism. I feel this is not a suitable response to oppression as it basically ensures that the oppressive regime will always be able to go one better. It also means that you are going to be beaten horribly in demonstrations etc, just look at the Vietnam era demos. To me it basically just seems inadequate in facing up against everything that is thrown at you.

My personal view, is that violence can be used as a tool to fight oppression, but only if it is in the face of violence from the state and it must be directed at the those who are halting the change directly and by choice, and only after the liberation movement is convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that there is no possibility whatsoever of bringing elements or all of the police/army onto their side. Also, there must be almost no danger that civilians not involved (yet) in the struggle will be hurt as this could ruin the perception of the liberation movement. Finally, violence must not be the only tactic used, more conventional means need to be employed to keep a broad front.

In conclusion, violence is the last resort, nearly everything is better than it, but as part of a wider campaign using civil disobedience it can be acceptable.

Wow, that took a while...hope it wasn't too heavy and i'd like to know what you think. Have I got it all wrong?

Thanks

Red-Fred