• 520@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    One side is gonna lose in the end.

    And there are plenty of times where this is done non violently.

    Basic self-preservation as you put it requires violence.

    Yes. As a last resort. That doesn’t mean never using violence. It means using it for self preservation, not just because you disagree with them.

    • RedPandaRaider@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      As a last resort is too late. If you can use violence successfully, it justifies itself. Waiting for when it’s time for the last resort is too late. You’re not going to stop the nazis in the spring of 1933, you would have needed to kill them in the 20s, a decade before they came to power. The same applies to any political movement.

      • 520@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re not going to stop the nazis in the spring of 1933, you would have needed to kill them in the 20s, a decade before they came to power.

        Except such thinking was how we got the Nazis in the first place. Hitler co-opted unions and parties who were extremised by such responses, and these were the basis of the Nazi party.

        • RedPandaRaider@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No the reason why we got the Nazis in the first place is because liberal institutions allowed them to exist and participate. It was mainly the fault of the German social democratic party.

          Violence is how to prevent them. For anything you can criticize the Soviet Union for, any fascist movement there would have been squashed with extreme prejudice. Just like anyone even close to fascism ideologically was terrorised.

          • 520@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Ah yes, because violence people who think differently to you has never led to extremism and said violence being returned to you…apart from the many, many times that it has.

            Seriously, if you think that initiating violence against right wingers is going to lead to anything except right wing extremists using violence on everyone else, you really need to look at your history books again.

            • krimsonbun@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              “think differently than you” is very different to “i think you and everyone like you should die because of your skin colour and/or gender”

            • RedPandaRaider@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re the one who needs to read some history books if you think violence isn’t the solution. It’s the only solution that works. Fascists using violence back isn’t a counter-argument. That’s only logical and part of the equation.

              But better than for just on the aspect of fascism, I’d really recommend Reflections on Violence by Georges Sorrel, before you condemn violence to be a last resort and inferior to pacifism or civil debate.