Ian Murray wrote:
>
> -[clip]
>
> Nobody, no one has the right to inaugurate violence. [Ian in earlier post]
> > >>
> [clip]
> > [Yoshie]
> > But we know that ruling classes (by they lords, bourgeoisie, etc.)
> > have never accepted the idea you advocate; nor will they. The
> > question of use of violence has to be considered with reference to
> > the real world.
> >
> ==========
> Yup, the golden rule is for wimps and cowards................power and
> domination is where the fun is...........
>
You jump too many stages of the argument here. The golden rule operates
at far too high a level of abstraction, and the question is not of where
the fun is but a question of necessity: that is, the question is not
whether to _inaugurate_ violence but of how to _meet_ violence.
Revolutionaries very rarely initiate violence but respond to attack. The
NLF began armed resistance in South Vietnam (against the wishes of the
DRV) not in a search for power or domination but in response to a choice
of fight or die. John Adams, overhearing a farmer in a bar room say,
"Rebel," said he was disgusted -- he would _meet_ rebellion when the
King began it. And the Civil War in China was initiated by the
nationalist forces, not by the Red Army.
Had there not been armed units in Iran prepared for resistance that
peaceful revolution might well have been drowned in blood. The Shah
might have trusted his troops to quell the demonstrations, but not to
continue the struggle were resistance encountered.
Incidentally, there is no such thing as violence -- that is, there is no
acceptable category that contains all the various human activities that
are loosely (and incorrectly) gathered under the label "violence." Hence
there can be no useful discussion of "Violence in the abstract."
Carrol
